claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Says 2010 video clip showing coffins in a field proves 'COVID was planned. | Contradiction | A clip from a 2010 episode of the truTV series 'Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura' has resurfaced on social media, and it's being used to claim that COVID-19 was planned by the government. The clip, which was posted to TikTok and reshared on Facebook Sept. 9, shows former Minnesota governor and professional wrestler Jesse Ventura with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in Madison, Ga., hiding behind trees next to a plot of land filled with what they called hundreds of thousands of 'plastic coffins.' While looking over the scene, the two men discussed claims that the government was holding these coffins in preparation for a biological pandemic, which would be used to kill thousands of 'dissidents' and send people into concentration camps owned and operated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 'Officially, they're plastic grave liners, seven feet long, three feet deep, with lids,' Ventura is heard narrating as the camera pans to stacks of the black containers. 'The company that makes them says they're just being stored for people's pre-needs. Well, who in the hell has a pre-need for this many coffins - unless they're planning a massacre?' The episode first aired in November 2010, seven years after Ventura left office. But the new post of the video on Facebook claims that it shows 'proof' that 'COVID was planned.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The containers were being stored in Madison, but these claims surrounding them are false. And while conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic having been 'planned' have raged for more than a year, there is no evidence that this is the case. The containers in the video are called burial vaults, or grave liners, and they're made by a company called Vantage Product Corp. The vaults are meant to protect interred caskets. They also keep the ground from caving in at burial, said the company's vice president, Lisa Barlow. 'The majority of cemeteries across the United States require the use of a burial vault when a body is interred,' Barlow said. This isn't the first time this claim about the caskets being for nefarious purposes has arisen. In 2008, Madison-based newspaper the Morgan County Citizen, debunked the claim and stated that Vantage leased the land and used it to store burial vaults. Vantage's then-Vice President of Operations Michael Lacy said that the vaults are stored for people who pre-arrange for their funerals. It's common practice for people to make their funeral arrangements before death, including selecting a casket and burial vault. 'Once this selection has been made, the local funeral home that has made the arrangements can purchase the burial vault product from Vantage Products and we will store it for them until that person dies,' Barlow said. She also noted that there were 50,000 vaults stored on the property - far fewer than the hundreds of thousands that Jones had described in the video. Ventura and Jones, who owns InfoWars, a site known to promote right-wing conspiracy theories, also claimed that Vantage used to be owned by a company that had ties to Halliburton, a Houston-based oil and energy company once led by former Vice President Dick Cheney that held lucrative government contracts during the Iraq War. Ventura and Jones claimed a Halliburton subsidiary was paid $385 million to partner with FEMA to build concentration camps. A FEMA spokesperson told PolitiFact that the information in the video is 'unequivocally false,' and that they've never contracted with Halliburton to build any type of camp. 'FEMA does not and has not operated concentration camp centers in response to COVID-19 or any other disasters. FEMA's mission is to help people before, during and after disasters,' the spokesperson said. Halliburton did not respond to PolitiFact's request for comment. PolitiFact investigated similar rumors about FEMA-created COVID-19 camps in 2020, and found them to be baseless. | Our ruling A video shared on Facebook claims to show proof that COVID-19 was planned. It features a 2010 clip of Ventura and Jones discussing a Madison, Ga., plot of land filled with 'plastic coffins,' which they said were being stored by the government as part of a plan to kill thousands in a biological pandemic and open FEMA concentration camps. The containers are burial vaults used to put caskets in when they're interred in the ground. They are being stored for people who made burial arrangements before death. And there is no evidence they are linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. FEMA has not operated concentration camp centers in response to COVID-19 or any other disaster. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | [
"104133-proof-21-047ac4cddfdb331dc8e910467a840f35.jpg"
]
|
Says 2010 video clip showing coffins in a field proves 'COVID was planned. | Contradiction | A clip from a 2010 episode of the truTV series 'Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura' has resurfaced on social media, and it's being used to claim that COVID-19 was planned by the government. The clip, which was posted to TikTok and reshared on Facebook Sept. 9, shows former Minnesota governor and professional wrestler Jesse Ventura with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in Madison, Ga., hiding behind trees next to a plot of land filled with what they called hundreds of thousands of 'plastic coffins.' While looking over the scene, the two men discussed claims that the government was holding these coffins in preparation for a biological pandemic, which would be used to kill thousands of 'dissidents' and send people into concentration camps owned and operated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 'Officially, they're plastic grave liners, seven feet long, three feet deep, with lids,' Ventura is heard narrating as the camera pans to stacks of the black containers. 'The company that makes them says they're just being stored for people's pre-needs. Well, who in the hell has a pre-need for this many coffins - unless they're planning a massacre?' The episode first aired in November 2010, seven years after Ventura left office. But the new post of the video on Facebook claims that it shows 'proof' that 'COVID was planned.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The containers were being stored in Madison, but these claims surrounding them are false. And while conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic having been 'planned' have raged for more than a year, there is no evidence that this is the case. The containers in the video are called burial vaults, or grave liners, and they're made by a company called Vantage Product Corp. The vaults are meant to protect interred caskets. They also keep the ground from caving in at burial, said the company's vice president, Lisa Barlow. 'The majority of cemeteries across the United States require the use of a burial vault when a body is interred,' Barlow said. This isn't the first time this claim about the caskets being for nefarious purposes has arisen. In 2008, Madison-based newspaper the Morgan County Citizen, debunked the claim and stated that Vantage leased the land and used it to store burial vaults. Vantage's then-Vice President of Operations Michael Lacy said that the vaults are stored for people who pre-arrange for their funerals. It's common practice for people to make their funeral arrangements before death, including selecting a casket and burial vault. 'Once this selection has been made, the local funeral home that has made the arrangements can purchase the burial vault product from Vantage Products and we will store it for them until that person dies,' Barlow said. She also noted that there were 50,000 vaults stored on the property - far fewer than the hundreds of thousands that Jones had described in the video. Ventura and Jones, who owns InfoWars, a site known to promote right-wing conspiracy theories, also claimed that Vantage used to be owned by a company that had ties to Halliburton, a Houston-based oil and energy company once led by former Vice President Dick Cheney that held lucrative government contracts during the Iraq War. Ventura and Jones claimed a Halliburton subsidiary was paid $385 million to partner with FEMA to build concentration camps. A FEMA spokesperson told PolitiFact that the information in the video is 'unequivocally false,' and that they've never contracted with Halliburton to build any type of camp. 'FEMA does not and has not operated concentration camp centers in response to COVID-19 or any other disasters. FEMA's mission is to help people before, during and after disasters,' the spokesperson said. Halliburton did not respond to PolitiFact's request for comment. PolitiFact investigated similar rumors about FEMA-created COVID-19 camps in 2020, and found them to be baseless. | Our ruling A video shared on Facebook claims to show proof that COVID-19 was planned. It features a 2010 clip of Ventura and Jones discussing a Madison, Ga., plot of land filled with 'plastic coffins,' which they said were being stored by the government as part of a plan to kill thousands in a biological pandemic and open FEMA concentration camps. The containers are burial vaults used to put caskets in when they're interred in the ground. They are being stored for people who made burial arrangements before death. And there is no evidence they are linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. FEMA has not operated concentration camp centers in response to COVID-19 or any other disaster. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | [
"104133-proof-21-047ac4cddfdb331dc8e910467a840f35.jpg"
]
|
Says 2010 video clip showing coffins in a field proves 'COVID was planned. | Contradiction | A clip from a 2010 episode of the truTV series 'Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura' has resurfaced on social media, and it's being used to claim that COVID-19 was planned by the government. The clip, which was posted to TikTok and reshared on Facebook Sept. 9, shows former Minnesota governor and professional wrestler Jesse Ventura with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in Madison, Ga., hiding behind trees next to a plot of land filled with what they called hundreds of thousands of 'plastic coffins.' While looking over the scene, the two men discussed claims that the government was holding these coffins in preparation for a biological pandemic, which would be used to kill thousands of 'dissidents' and send people into concentration camps owned and operated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 'Officially, they're plastic grave liners, seven feet long, three feet deep, with lids,' Ventura is heard narrating as the camera pans to stacks of the black containers. 'The company that makes them says they're just being stored for people's pre-needs. Well, who in the hell has a pre-need for this many coffins - unless they're planning a massacre?' The episode first aired in November 2010, seven years after Ventura left office. But the new post of the video on Facebook claims that it shows 'proof' that 'COVID was planned.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The containers were being stored in Madison, but these claims surrounding them are false. And while conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic having been 'planned' have raged for more than a year, there is no evidence that this is the case. The containers in the video are called burial vaults, or grave liners, and they're made by a company called Vantage Product Corp. The vaults are meant to protect interred caskets. They also keep the ground from caving in at burial, said the company's vice president, Lisa Barlow. 'The majority of cemeteries across the United States require the use of a burial vault when a body is interred,' Barlow said. This isn't the first time this claim about the caskets being for nefarious purposes has arisen. In 2008, Madison-based newspaper the Morgan County Citizen, debunked the claim and stated that Vantage leased the land and used it to store burial vaults. Vantage's then-Vice President of Operations Michael Lacy said that the vaults are stored for people who pre-arrange for their funerals. It's common practice for people to make their funeral arrangements before death, including selecting a casket and burial vault. 'Once this selection has been made, the local funeral home that has made the arrangements can purchase the burial vault product from Vantage Products and we will store it for them until that person dies,' Barlow said. She also noted that there were 50,000 vaults stored on the property - far fewer than the hundreds of thousands that Jones had described in the video. Ventura and Jones, who owns InfoWars, a site known to promote right-wing conspiracy theories, also claimed that Vantage used to be owned by a company that had ties to Halliburton, a Houston-based oil and energy company once led by former Vice President Dick Cheney that held lucrative government contracts during the Iraq War. Ventura and Jones claimed a Halliburton subsidiary was paid $385 million to partner with FEMA to build concentration camps. A FEMA spokesperson told PolitiFact that the information in the video is 'unequivocally false,' and that they've never contracted with Halliburton to build any type of camp. 'FEMA does not and has not operated concentration camp centers in response to COVID-19 or any other disasters. FEMA's mission is to help people before, during and after disasters,' the spokesperson said. Halliburton did not respond to PolitiFact's request for comment. PolitiFact investigated similar rumors about FEMA-created COVID-19 camps in 2020, and found them to be baseless. | Our ruling A video shared on Facebook claims to show proof that COVID-19 was planned. It features a 2010 clip of Ventura and Jones discussing a Madison, Ga., plot of land filled with 'plastic coffins,' which they said were being stored by the government as part of a plan to kill thousands in a biological pandemic and open FEMA concentration camps. The containers are burial vaults used to put caskets in when they're interred in the ground. They are being stored for people who made burial arrangements before death. And there is no evidence they are linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. FEMA has not operated concentration camp centers in response to COVID-19 or any other disaster. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | [
"104133-proof-21-047ac4cddfdb331dc8e910467a840f35.jpg"
]
|
Says Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, George Soros and Jeffrey Epstein are connected with Moderna, Inc., and its efforts to create the coronavirus vaccine. | Contradiction | In an online conspiracy circulating on Facebook, infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, billionaire investor George Soros, and financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are all linked in the ongoing pursuit of a coronavirus vaccine. An Aug. 2 post lists a series of accusations against the four men and claims their partnership was decades in the making. 'As many of you heard, Moderna is in stage 3 of their vaccine testing. If all goes well it'll become federal law to get the vaccine,' the post begins. Then follows a series of unfounded claims, including: Fauci was the first CEO of Moderna. Fauci and Gates were roommates at Cornell. 'It was at Cornell that Bill Gates designed the RFID (Radio-frequency identification) and patented it under US2006257852.' 'Moderna was a pharmaceutical company that started in Germany under the name IG Farben. IG Farben is infamous for it's mass production of Zyklon-B, the primary gas used to kill millions during the Holocaust.' After World War II, IG Farben was 'dissolved and its assets sold off by a Nazi turned American by the name of, you guessed it, George Soros.' 'Soros rebranded the company as Moderna.' Jeffrey Epstein was 'primary stockholder of Moderna until his death...His role in Moderna is where he made his fortune and established his connections.' 'Let that sink in,' the post ends. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This post is filled with many accusations, none of them accurate. Let's take them one by one: Moderna Inc. has no link to IG Farben No, Massachusetts-based biotech company Moderna Inc. does not trace its lineage to Germany. It was founded in 2010 with the mission of studying a technology known as mRNA to develop new pharmaceuticals and launched operations in 2011. Moderna is in phase 3 of a clinical trial for a COVID-19 vaccine. IG Farben-formally known in German as Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie Aktiengesellschaft-was a chemical and pharmaceutical conglomerate established in 1925 and made up of four other German companies: BASF Aktiengesellschaft, Bayer AG, Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, and Agfa-Gevaert Group, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. The company did create a synthetic oil and rubber plant in Auschwitz and used inmates for drug experiments during World War II, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. But after the war, the Allied powers charged top executives with war crimes, and the company was divided into three: Hoechst, Bayer and BASF. We find no indication that IG Farben has any connection to Moderna. Moderna did not respond to our inquiries. Anthony Fauci was never CEO of Moderna Anthony Fauci is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health has taken a leading public role in the coronavirus pandemic. He was never CEO of Moderna. He graduated from Weill Cornell Medical College in 1966 and began working for the NIAID two years after graduating, according to multiple sources including the Cornell Daily Sun and the NIH. He has spent the rest of his career in the public sector. Fauci was named director of the institute in 1984 and has overseen research to prevent, diagnose and treat HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria. Gates and Fauci roomies? No. Gates and Fauci were not roommates at Cornell. First, Fauci was 14 when Gates was born in 1955. Second, Gates didn't attend Cornell. He studied for two years at Harvard University beginning in 1973. By that time, Fauci was already working for the NIH. Gates later dropped out of Harvard and founded Microsoft. RELATED: No, Fauci wasn't on the Clinton Foundation board for two decades Facts wrong on radio-frequency ID tag Gates also didn't have a role in patenting the radio-frequency identification tag chips mentioned in the post. Mario Cardullo was the first to patent the tag in 1973. And while the patent number 'US2006257852' cited in the post is a real patent, it's not for the RFID tag. It's a patent related to the disease known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS). Soros was not a Nazi PolitiFact, along with other fact-checkers, has debunked claims that George Soros was a Nazi. Soros survived the Holocaust. When the Nazis invaded Hungary, Soros' father obtained a false identity for Soros and sent him to live with an agricultural official who passed him off as his Christian godson, according to the New York Times. Soros also did not buy the assets of IG Farben and disguise the company under Moderna. In 1945, when the Allied powers split up IG Farben, Soros was a teenager. Jeffrey Epstein not a primary Moderna stockholder Epstein began working at Bear Stearns in 1976 and was promoted to partner in 1980, according to the Miami Herald. In 1982, he opened his own money management firm called J Epstein and Co., where he 'would manage the individual and family fortunes of clients with $1 billion or more,' according to a 2002 New York Magazine profile on Epstein. In the late 1990s, he renamed the firm to Financial Trust Company and moved the headquarters to the U.S. Virgin Islands to receive a tax break, according to the New York Times. When Moderna was established in 2010, Epstein was serving a one-year probation after being convicted of sex offenses in 2008, contrary to the post. In 2012, he created a start-up business, Southern Trust, to develop algorithms and mine DNA and financial databases, according to the New York Times. The company managed to pay a tax rate of about 3.9% after generating a $300 million profit in 2013, and its corporate filings show no clients, according to the article. He would also start his own international bank, but it's unclear whether it had any customers. Neither Epstein, nor his management firm, are listed as one of the primary stockholders in Moderna, according to CNN Business and the Wall Street Journal. We found no indication that Epstein was one of the primary stockholders in Moderna when he died on Aug. 10, 2019. He was awaiting trial for federal sex trafficking charges when he committed suicide in his prison cell. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that the vaccine developer Moderna is connected to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, George Soros and Jeffrey Epstein. But none of the supposed connections are founded. We rate this Pants on Fire. | [
"104140-proof-18-37491e3fe0db80b680089ffcc804a8c4.jpg"
]
|
Says Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, George Soros and Jeffrey Epstein are connected with Moderna, Inc., and its efforts to create the coronavirus vaccine. | Contradiction | In an online conspiracy circulating on Facebook, infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, billionaire investor George Soros, and financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are all linked in the ongoing pursuit of a coronavirus vaccine. An Aug. 2 post lists a series of accusations against the four men and claims their partnership was decades in the making. 'As many of you heard, Moderna is in stage 3 of their vaccine testing. If all goes well it'll become federal law to get the vaccine,' the post begins. Then follows a series of unfounded claims, including: Fauci was the first CEO of Moderna. Fauci and Gates were roommates at Cornell. 'It was at Cornell that Bill Gates designed the RFID (Radio-frequency identification) and patented it under US2006257852.' 'Moderna was a pharmaceutical company that started in Germany under the name IG Farben. IG Farben is infamous for it's mass production of Zyklon-B, the primary gas used to kill millions during the Holocaust.' After World War II, IG Farben was 'dissolved and its assets sold off by a Nazi turned American by the name of, you guessed it, George Soros.' 'Soros rebranded the company as Moderna.' Jeffrey Epstein was 'primary stockholder of Moderna until his death...His role in Moderna is where he made his fortune and established his connections.' 'Let that sink in,' the post ends. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This post is filled with many accusations, none of them accurate. Let's take them one by one: Moderna Inc. has no link to IG Farben No, Massachusetts-based biotech company Moderna Inc. does not trace its lineage to Germany. It was founded in 2010 with the mission of studying a technology known as mRNA to develop new pharmaceuticals and launched operations in 2011. Moderna is in phase 3 of a clinical trial for a COVID-19 vaccine. IG Farben-formally known in German as Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie Aktiengesellschaft-was a chemical and pharmaceutical conglomerate established in 1925 and made up of four other German companies: BASF Aktiengesellschaft, Bayer AG, Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, and Agfa-Gevaert Group, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. The company did create a synthetic oil and rubber plant in Auschwitz and used inmates for drug experiments during World War II, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. But after the war, the Allied powers charged top executives with war crimes, and the company was divided into three: Hoechst, Bayer and BASF. We find no indication that IG Farben has any connection to Moderna. Moderna did not respond to our inquiries. Anthony Fauci was never CEO of Moderna Anthony Fauci is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health has taken a leading public role in the coronavirus pandemic. He was never CEO of Moderna. He graduated from Weill Cornell Medical College in 1966 and began working for the NIAID two years after graduating, according to multiple sources including the Cornell Daily Sun and the NIH. He has spent the rest of his career in the public sector. Fauci was named director of the institute in 1984 and has overseen research to prevent, diagnose and treat HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria. Gates and Fauci roomies? No. Gates and Fauci were not roommates at Cornell. First, Fauci was 14 when Gates was born in 1955. Second, Gates didn't attend Cornell. He studied for two years at Harvard University beginning in 1973. By that time, Fauci was already working for the NIH. Gates later dropped out of Harvard and founded Microsoft. RELATED: No, Fauci wasn't on the Clinton Foundation board for two decades Facts wrong on radio-frequency ID tag Gates also didn't have a role in patenting the radio-frequency identification tag chips mentioned in the post. Mario Cardullo was the first to patent the tag in 1973. And while the patent number 'US2006257852' cited in the post is a real patent, it's not for the RFID tag. It's a patent related to the disease known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS). Soros was not a Nazi PolitiFact, along with other fact-checkers, has debunked claims that George Soros was a Nazi. Soros survived the Holocaust. When the Nazis invaded Hungary, Soros' father obtained a false identity for Soros and sent him to live with an agricultural official who passed him off as his Christian godson, according to the New York Times. Soros also did not buy the assets of IG Farben and disguise the company under Moderna. In 1945, when the Allied powers split up IG Farben, Soros was a teenager. Jeffrey Epstein not a primary Moderna stockholder Epstein began working at Bear Stearns in 1976 and was promoted to partner in 1980, according to the Miami Herald. In 1982, he opened his own money management firm called J Epstein and Co., where he 'would manage the individual and family fortunes of clients with $1 billion or more,' according to a 2002 New York Magazine profile on Epstein. In the late 1990s, he renamed the firm to Financial Trust Company and moved the headquarters to the U.S. Virgin Islands to receive a tax break, according to the New York Times. When Moderna was established in 2010, Epstein was serving a one-year probation after being convicted of sex offenses in 2008, contrary to the post. In 2012, he created a start-up business, Southern Trust, to develop algorithms and mine DNA and financial databases, according to the New York Times. The company managed to pay a tax rate of about 3.9% after generating a $300 million profit in 2013, and its corporate filings show no clients, according to the article. He would also start his own international bank, but it's unclear whether it had any customers. Neither Epstein, nor his management firm, are listed as one of the primary stockholders in Moderna, according to CNN Business and the Wall Street Journal. We found no indication that Epstein was one of the primary stockholders in Moderna when he died on Aug. 10, 2019. He was awaiting trial for federal sex trafficking charges when he committed suicide in his prison cell. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that the vaccine developer Moderna is connected to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, George Soros and Jeffrey Epstein. But none of the supposed connections are founded. We rate this Pants on Fire. | [
"104140-proof-18-37491e3fe0db80b680089ffcc804a8c4.jpg"
]
|
Says Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, George Soros and Jeffrey Epstein are connected with Moderna, Inc., and its efforts to create the coronavirus vaccine. | Contradiction | In an online conspiracy circulating on Facebook, infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, billionaire investor George Soros, and financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are all linked in the ongoing pursuit of a coronavirus vaccine. An Aug. 2 post lists a series of accusations against the four men and claims their partnership was decades in the making. 'As many of you heard, Moderna is in stage 3 of their vaccine testing. If all goes well it'll become federal law to get the vaccine,' the post begins. Then follows a series of unfounded claims, including: Fauci was the first CEO of Moderna. Fauci and Gates were roommates at Cornell. 'It was at Cornell that Bill Gates designed the RFID (Radio-frequency identification) and patented it under US2006257852.' 'Moderna was a pharmaceutical company that started in Germany under the name IG Farben. IG Farben is infamous for it's mass production of Zyklon-B, the primary gas used to kill millions during the Holocaust.' After World War II, IG Farben was 'dissolved and its assets sold off by a Nazi turned American by the name of, you guessed it, George Soros.' 'Soros rebranded the company as Moderna.' Jeffrey Epstein was 'primary stockholder of Moderna until his death...His role in Moderna is where he made his fortune and established his connections.' 'Let that sink in,' the post ends. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This post is filled with many accusations, none of them accurate. Let's take them one by one: Moderna Inc. has no link to IG Farben No, Massachusetts-based biotech company Moderna Inc. does not trace its lineage to Germany. It was founded in 2010 with the mission of studying a technology known as mRNA to develop new pharmaceuticals and launched operations in 2011. Moderna is in phase 3 of a clinical trial for a COVID-19 vaccine. IG Farben-formally known in German as Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie Aktiengesellschaft-was a chemical and pharmaceutical conglomerate established in 1925 and made up of four other German companies: BASF Aktiengesellschaft, Bayer AG, Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, and Agfa-Gevaert Group, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. The company did create a synthetic oil and rubber plant in Auschwitz and used inmates for drug experiments during World War II, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. But after the war, the Allied powers charged top executives with war crimes, and the company was divided into three: Hoechst, Bayer and BASF. We find no indication that IG Farben has any connection to Moderna. Moderna did not respond to our inquiries. Anthony Fauci was never CEO of Moderna Anthony Fauci is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health has taken a leading public role in the coronavirus pandemic. He was never CEO of Moderna. He graduated from Weill Cornell Medical College in 1966 and began working for the NIAID two years after graduating, according to multiple sources including the Cornell Daily Sun and the NIH. He has spent the rest of his career in the public sector. Fauci was named director of the institute in 1984 and has overseen research to prevent, diagnose and treat HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria. Gates and Fauci roomies? No. Gates and Fauci were not roommates at Cornell. First, Fauci was 14 when Gates was born in 1955. Second, Gates didn't attend Cornell. He studied for two years at Harvard University beginning in 1973. By that time, Fauci was already working for the NIH. Gates later dropped out of Harvard and founded Microsoft. RELATED: No, Fauci wasn't on the Clinton Foundation board for two decades Facts wrong on radio-frequency ID tag Gates also didn't have a role in patenting the radio-frequency identification tag chips mentioned in the post. Mario Cardullo was the first to patent the tag in 1973. And while the patent number 'US2006257852' cited in the post is a real patent, it's not for the RFID tag. It's a patent related to the disease known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS). Soros was not a Nazi PolitiFact, along with other fact-checkers, has debunked claims that George Soros was a Nazi. Soros survived the Holocaust. When the Nazis invaded Hungary, Soros' father obtained a false identity for Soros and sent him to live with an agricultural official who passed him off as his Christian godson, according to the New York Times. Soros also did not buy the assets of IG Farben and disguise the company under Moderna. In 1945, when the Allied powers split up IG Farben, Soros was a teenager. Jeffrey Epstein not a primary Moderna stockholder Epstein began working at Bear Stearns in 1976 and was promoted to partner in 1980, according to the Miami Herald. In 1982, he opened his own money management firm called J Epstein and Co., where he 'would manage the individual and family fortunes of clients with $1 billion or more,' according to a 2002 New York Magazine profile on Epstein. In the late 1990s, he renamed the firm to Financial Trust Company and moved the headquarters to the U.S. Virgin Islands to receive a tax break, according to the New York Times. When Moderna was established in 2010, Epstein was serving a one-year probation after being convicted of sex offenses in 2008, contrary to the post. In 2012, he created a start-up business, Southern Trust, to develop algorithms and mine DNA and financial databases, according to the New York Times. The company managed to pay a tax rate of about 3.9% after generating a $300 million profit in 2013, and its corporate filings show no clients, according to the article. He would also start his own international bank, but it's unclear whether it had any customers. Neither Epstein, nor his management firm, are listed as one of the primary stockholders in Moderna, according to CNN Business and the Wall Street Journal. We found no indication that Epstein was one of the primary stockholders in Moderna when he died on Aug. 10, 2019. He was awaiting trial for federal sex trafficking charges when he committed suicide in his prison cell. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that the vaccine developer Moderna is connected to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, George Soros and Jeffrey Epstein. But none of the supposed connections are founded. We rate this Pants on Fire. | [
"104140-proof-18-37491e3fe0db80b680089ffcc804a8c4.jpg"
]
|
Says Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, George Soros and Jeffrey Epstein are connected with Moderna, Inc., and its efforts to create the coronavirus vaccine. | Contradiction | In an online conspiracy circulating on Facebook, infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, billionaire investor George Soros, and financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are all linked in the ongoing pursuit of a coronavirus vaccine. An Aug. 2 post lists a series of accusations against the four men and claims their partnership was decades in the making. 'As many of you heard, Moderna is in stage 3 of their vaccine testing. If all goes well it'll become federal law to get the vaccine,' the post begins. Then follows a series of unfounded claims, including: Fauci was the first CEO of Moderna. Fauci and Gates were roommates at Cornell. 'It was at Cornell that Bill Gates designed the RFID (Radio-frequency identification) and patented it under US2006257852.' 'Moderna was a pharmaceutical company that started in Germany under the name IG Farben. IG Farben is infamous for it's mass production of Zyklon-B, the primary gas used to kill millions during the Holocaust.' After World War II, IG Farben was 'dissolved and its assets sold off by a Nazi turned American by the name of, you guessed it, George Soros.' 'Soros rebranded the company as Moderna.' Jeffrey Epstein was 'primary stockholder of Moderna until his death...His role in Moderna is where he made his fortune and established his connections.' 'Let that sink in,' the post ends. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This post is filled with many accusations, none of them accurate. Let's take them one by one: Moderna Inc. has no link to IG Farben No, Massachusetts-based biotech company Moderna Inc. does not trace its lineage to Germany. It was founded in 2010 with the mission of studying a technology known as mRNA to develop new pharmaceuticals and launched operations in 2011. Moderna is in phase 3 of a clinical trial for a COVID-19 vaccine. IG Farben-formally known in German as Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie Aktiengesellschaft-was a chemical and pharmaceutical conglomerate established in 1925 and made up of four other German companies: BASF Aktiengesellschaft, Bayer AG, Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, and Agfa-Gevaert Group, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. The company did create a synthetic oil and rubber plant in Auschwitz and used inmates for drug experiments during World War II, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. But after the war, the Allied powers charged top executives with war crimes, and the company was divided into three: Hoechst, Bayer and BASF. We find no indication that IG Farben has any connection to Moderna. Moderna did not respond to our inquiries. Anthony Fauci was never CEO of Moderna Anthony Fauci is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health has taken a leading public role in the coronavirus pandemic. He was never CEO of Moderna. He graduated from Weill Cornell Medical College in 1966 and began working for the NIAID two years after graduating, according to multiple sources including the Cornell Daily Sun and the NIH. He has spent the rest of his career in the public sector. Fauci was named director of the institute in 1984 and has overseen research to prevent, diagnose and treat HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria. Gates and Fauci roomies? No. Gates and Fauci were not roommates at Cornell. First, Fauci was 14 when Gates was born in 1955. Second, Gates didn't attend Cornell. He studied for two years at Harvard University beginning in 1973. By that time, Fauci was already working for the NIH. Gates later dropped out of Harvard and founded Microsoft. RELATED: No, Fauci wasn't on the Clinton Foundation board for two decades Facts wrong on radio-frequency ID tag Gates also didn't have a role in patenting the radio-frequency identification tag chips mentioned in the post. Mario Cardullo was the first to patent the tag in 1973. And while the patent number 'US2006257852' cited in the post is a real patent, it's not for the RFID tag. It's a patent related to the disease known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS). Soros was not a Nazi PolitiFact, along with other fact-checkers, has debunked claims that George Soros was a Nazi. Soros survived the Holocaust. When the Nazis invaded Hungary, Soros' father obtained a false identity for Soros and sent him to live with an agricultural official who passed him off as his Christian godson, according to the New York Times. Soros also did not buy the assets of IG Farben and disguise the company under Moderna. In 1945, when the Allied powers split up IG Farben, Soros was a teenager. Jeffrey Epstein not a primary Moderna stockholder Epstein began working at Bear Stearns in 1976 and was promoted to partner in 1980, according to the Miami Herald. In 1982, he opened his own money management firm called J Epstein and Co., where he 'would manage the individual and family fortunes of clients with $1 billion or more,' according to a 2002 New York Magazine profile on Epstein. In the late 1990s, he renamed the firm to Financial Trust Company and moved the headquarters to the U.S. Virgin Islands to receive a tax break, according to the New York Times. When Moderna was established in 2010, Epstein was serving a one-year probation after being convicted of sex offenses in 2008, contrary to the post. In 2012, he created a start-up business, Southern Trust, to develop algorithms and mine DNA and financial databases, according to the New York Times. The company managed to pay a tax rate of about 3.9% after generating a $300 million profit in 2013, and its corporate filings show no clients, according to the article. He would also start his own international bank, but it's unclear whether it had any customers. Neither Epstein, nor his management firm, are listed as one of the primary stockholders in Moderna, according to CNN Business and the Wall Street Journal. We found no indication that Epstein was one of the primary stockholders in Moderna when he died on Aug. 10, 2019. He was awaiting trial for federal sex trafficking charges when he committed suicide in his prison cell. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that the vaccine developer Moderna is connected to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, George Soros and Jeffrey Epstein. But none of the supposed connections are founded. We rate this Pants on Fire. | [
"104140-proof-18-37491e3fe0db80b680089ffcc804a8c4.jpg"
]
|
Says Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, George Soros and Jeffrey Epstein are connected with Moderna, Inc., and its efforts to create the coronavirus vaccine. | Contradiction | In an online conspiracy circulating on Facebook, infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, billionaire investor George Soros, and financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are all linked in the ongoing pursuit of a coronavirus vaccine. An Aug. 2 post lists a series of accusations against the four men and claims their partnership was decades in the making. 'As many of you heard, Moderna is in stage 3 of their vaccine testing. If all goes well it'll become federal law to get the vaccine,' the post begins. Then follows a series of unfounded claims, including: Fauci was the first CEO of Moderna. Fauci and Gates were roommates at Cornell. 'It was at Cornell that Bill Gates designed the RFID (Radio-frequency identification) and patented it under US2006257852.' 'Moderna was a pharmaceutical company that started in Germany under the name IG Farben. IG Farben is infamous for it's mass production of Zyklon-B, the primary gas used to kill millions during the Holocaust.' After World War II, IG Farben was 'dissolved and its assets sold off by a Nazi turned American by the name of, you guessed it, George Soros.' 'Soros rebranded the company as Moderna.' Jeffrey Epstein was 'primary stockholder of Moderna until his death...His role in Moderna is where he made his fortune and established his connections.' 'Let that sink in,' the post ends. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This post is filled with many accusations, none of them accurate. Let's take them one by one: Moderna Inc. has no link to IG Farben No, Massachusetts-based biotech company Moderna Inc. does not trace its lineage to Germany. It was founded in 2010 with the mission of studying a technology known as mRNA to develop new pharmaceuticals and launched operations in 2011. Moderna is in phase 3 of a clinical trial for a COVID-19 vaccine. IG Farben-formally known in German as Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie Aktiengesellschaft-was a chemical and pharmaceutical conglomerate established in 1925 and made up of four other German companies: BASF Aktiengesellschaft, Bayer AG, Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, and Agfa-Gevaert Group, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. The company did create a synthetic oil and rubber plant in Auschwitz and used inmates for drug experiments during World War II, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. But after the war, the Allied powers charged top executives with war crimes, and the company was divided into three: Hoechst, Bayer and BASF. We find no indication that IG Farben has any connection to Moderna. Moderna did not respond to our inquiries. Anthony Fauci was never CEO of Moderna Anthony Fauci is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health has taken a leading public role in the coronavirus pandemic. He was never CEO of Moderna. He graduated from Weill Cornell Medical College in 1966 and began working for the NIAID two years after graduating, according to multiple sources including the Cornell Daily Sun and the NIH. He has spent the rest of his career in the public sector. Fauci was named director of the institute in 1984 and has overseen research to prevent, diagnose and treat HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria. Gates and Fauci roomies? No. Gates and Fauci were not roommates at Cornell. First, Fauci was 14 when Gates was born in 1955. Second, Gates didn't attend Cornell. He studied for two years at Harvard University beginning in 1973. By that time, Fauci was already working for the NIH. Gates later dropped out of Harvard and founded Microsoft. RELATED: No, Fauci wasn't on the Clinton Foundation board for two decades Facts wrong on radio-frequency ID tag Gates also didn't have a role in patenting the radio-frequency identification tag chips mentioned in the post. Mario Cardullo was the first to patent the tag in 1973. And while the patent number 'US2006257852' cited in the post is a real patent, it's not for the RFID tag. It's a patent related to the disease known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS). Soros was not a Nazi PolitiFact, along with other fact-checkers, has debunked claims that George Soros was a Nazi. Soros survived the Holocaust. When the Nazis invaded Hungary, Soros' father obtained a false identity for Soros and sent him to live with an agricultural official who passed him off as his Christian godson, according to the New York Times. Soros also did not buy the assets of IG Farben and disguise the company under Moderna. In 1945, when the Allied powers split up IG Farben, Soros was a teenager. Jeffrey Epstein not a primary Moderna stockholder Epstein began working at Bear Stearns in 1976 and was promoted to partner in 1980, according to the Miami Herald. In 1982, he opened his own money management firm called J Epstein and Co., where he 'would manage the individual and family fortunes of clients with $1 billion or more,' according to a 2002 New York Magazine profile on Epstein. In the late 1990s, he renamed the firm to Financial Trust Company and moved the headquarters to the U.S. Virgin Islands to receive a tax break, according to the New York Times. When Moderna was established in 2010, Epstein was serving a one-year probation after being convicted of sex offenses in 2008, contrary to the post. In 2012, he created a start-up business, Southern Trust, to develop algorithms and mine DNA and financial databases, according to the New York Times. The company managed to pay a tax rate of about 3.9% after generating a $300 million profit in 2013, and its corporate filings show no clients, according to the article. He would also start his own international bank, but it's unclear whether it had any customers. Neither Epstein, nor his management firm, are listed as one of the primary stockholders in Moderna, according to CNN Business and the Wall Street Journal. We found no indication that Epstein was one of the primary stockholders in Moderna when he died on Aug. 10, 2019. He was awaiting trial for federal sex trafficking charges when he committed suicide in his prison cell. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that the vaccine developer Moderna is connected to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, George Soros and Jeffrey Epstein. But none of the supposed connections are founded. We rate this Pants on Fire. | [
"104140-proof-18-37491e3fe0db80b680089ffcc804a8c4.jpg"
]
|
A fly landed on Amy Coney Barrett's shoulder during day one of the confirmation hearings | Contradiction | A fly made an unexpected cameo during the vice presidential debates on Oct. 7, alighting onto Vice President Mike Pence's head and settling in for about two minutes. An image being shared on social media makes it look like another fly landed on the shoulder of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett during the first day of her confirmation hearings. 'Is that a mis-placed lapel pin?' one account sharing the image wrote. 'Nope. A fly got in, and look where it landed.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In the image, the fly appears on Barrett's right shoulder and a timestamp says 2:08 p.m. Eastern time. We watched the footage of the hearing posted by C-SPAN, and no fly appears on her shoulder during that time. You can see for yourself starting around the 5:14:00mark here, or starting around the 6:06:25 mark here. Kirby Taylor, the user who posted the image on Facebook, told USA Today that it was a joke. She had been watching the hearing at home when a fly landed on the screen. Taylor took a photo and posted it to Facebook. But the photo has taken on a life of its own. Taylor's post was shared more than 13,000 times and other users have taken the image and posted it on their own Facebook pages with captions like 'Fly strikes again' and 'Once again. Nature's way of making things happen.' Even celebrity blogger Perez Hilton weighed in, posting: 'Was this another fly or are my eyes seeing things????' We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
A fly landed on Amy Coney Barrett's shoulder during day one of the confirmation hearings | Contradiction | A fly made an unexpected cameo during the vice presidential debates on Oct. 7, alighting onto Vice President Mike Pence's head and settling in for about two minutes. An image being shared on social media makes it look like another fly landed on the shoulder of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett during the first day of her confirmation hearings. 'Is that a mis-placed lapel pin?' one account sharing the image wrote. 'Nope. A fly got in, and look where it landed.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In the image, the fly appears on Barrett's right shoulder and a timestamp says 2:08 p.m. Eastern time. We watched the footage of the hearing posted by C-SPAN, and no fly appears on her shoulder during that time. You can see for yourself starting around the 5:14:00mark here, or starting around the 6:06:25 mark here. Kirby Taylor, the user who posted the image on Facebook, told USA Today that it was a joke. She had been watching the hearing at home when a fly landed on the screen. Taylor took a photo and posted it to Facebook. But the photo has taken on a life of its own. Taylor's post was shared more than 13,000 times and other users have taken the image and posted it on their own Facebook pages with captions like 'Fly strikes again' and 'Once again. Nature's way of making things happen.' Even celebrity blogger Perez Hilton weighed in, posting: 'Was this another fly or are my eyes seeing things????' We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
Says 'Pelosi blackmails Congress! She demands mail-in voting or no 2nd stimulus for you and your family. | Contradiction | House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to 'blackmail' Congress, according to a post on Facebook with heavy use of all-caps: 'PELOSI BLACKMAILS CONGRESS! She DEMANDS MAIL IN VOTING or NO 2nd STIMULUS for you and your family.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This claim is inaccurate for a lot of reasons, but first some background. Under a stimulus package signed into law in March, millions of out-of-work Americans were receiving an additional $600 per week to help them better manage the financial blow dealt by the coronavirus pandemic. Those checks expired at the end of July, and Washington lawmakers are embroiled in negotiations over what should be included in a new stimulus package. The Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act, also known as the HEROES Act, passed the Democrat-led House of Representatives more than two months ago. The Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection, and Schools Act, also called the HEALS Act, was introduced by Senate Republicans at the end of July but hasn't passed the Senate yet. There is a $2 trillion price difference between the two bills, but both offer the extension of stimulus checks from the CARES Act, with the HEROES Act upping the payment amount for dependents and extending the checks to immigrants with taxpayer identification numbers. Now, back to the claim that Pelosi 'demands' mail-in voting and is 'blackmailing' Congress. Pelosi said in April that the House's second stimulus package would 'be supporting vote by mail in a very important way.' The stimulus proposal passed by the House doesn't include any legislation specific to mail-in voting, but it does fund elections generally. The bill includes up to $3.6 billion in funding for the 'planning, preparation, and resilience of elections,' that would be distributed to states. So far, state governors are the ones deciding how to conduct voting and if they will only have mail-in voting in November. Congress already allocated $400 million in election funding for states in the CARES Act, and there is bipartisan support for more funding for states considering mail-in or early voting. The Republican-backed Senate bill does not include any extra funding for election safety during COVID-19. Federal law describes blackmail as a criminal offense punishable by fine, up to a year in prison or both. It amounts to someone demanding money or something of value from another 'under threat of informing or consideration for not informing against a violation of any law of the United States.' Pelosi has shown support for mail-in voting. But there is no evidence or credible suggestion she has blackmailed anyone. Frances Hill, law professor at the University of Miami, describes Pelosi's negotiations with Republicans as 'playing hardball,' which is 'routinely played by House Speakers' and not considered 'blackmail.' 'Voting is the foundation of our democracy and Congress has a duty to ensure that appropriate funding is available,' she said. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that Pelosi is 'blackmailing' Congress by not allowing a second stimulus bill to pass unless everyone votes by mail. Not only are state governors the only ones deciding how each state will vote, but the HEROES Act Pelosi is negotiating includes state funding for safe voting without any reference to mail-in voting. We rate this claim False. | [
"104173-proof-29-1fa8133d20482ea3c4bffb33f0e39212.jpeg"
]
|
Says 'Pelosi blackmails Congress! She demands mail-in voting or no 2nd stimulus for you and your family. | Contradiction | House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to 'blackmail' Congress, according to a post on Facebook with heavy use of all-caps: 'PELOSI BLACKMAILS CONGRESS! She DEMANDS MAIL IN VOTING or NO 2nd STIMULUS for you and your family.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This claim is inaccurate for a lot of reasons, but first some background. Under a stimulus package signed into law in March, millions of out-of-work Americans were receiving an additional $600 per week to help them better manage the financial blow dealt by the coronavirus pandemic. Those checks expired at the end of July, and Washington lawmakers are embroiled in negotiations over what should be included in a new stimulus package. The Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act, also known as the HEROES Act, passed the Democrat-led House of Representatives more than two months ago. The Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection, and Schools Act, also called the HEALS Act, was introduced by Senate Republicans at the end of July but hasn't passed the Senate yet. There is a $2 trillion price difference between the two bills, but both offer the extension of stimulus checks from the CARES Act, with the HEROES Act upping the payment amount for dependents and extending the checks to immigrants with taxpayer identification numbers. Now, back to the claim that Pelosi 'demands' mail-in voting and is 'blackmailing' Congress. Pelosi said in April that the House's second stimulus package would 'be supporting vote by mail in a very important way.' The stimulus proposal passed by the House doesn't include any legislation specific to mail-in voting, but it does fund elections generally. The bill includes up to $3.6 billion in funding for the 'planning, preparation, and resilience of elections,' that would be distributed to states. So far, state governors are the ones deciding how to conduct voting and if they will only have mail-in voting in November. Congress already allocated $400 million in election funding for states in the CARES Act, and there is bipartisan support for more funding for states considering mail-in or early voting. The Republican-backed Senate bill does not include any extra funding for election safety during COVID-19. Federal law describes blackmail as a criminal offense punishable by fine, up to a year in prison or both. It amounts to someone demanding money or something of value from another 'under threat of informing or consideration for not informing against a violation of any law of the United States.' Pelosi has shown support for mail-in voting. But there is no evidence or credible suggestion she has blackmailed anyone. Frances Hill, law professor at the University of Miami, describes Pelosi's negotiations with Republicans as 'playing hardball,' which is 'routinely played by House Speakers' and not considered 'blackmail.' 'Voting is the foundation of our democracy and Congress has a duty to ensure that appropriate funding is available,' she said. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that Pelosi is 'blackmailing' Congress by not allowing a second stimulus bill to pass unless everyone votes by mail. Not only are state governors the only ones deciding how each state will vote, but the HEROES Act Pelosi is negotiating includes state funding for safe voting without any reference to mail-in voting. We rate this claim False. | [
"104173-proof-29-1fa8133d20482ea3c4bffb33f0e39212.jpeg"
]
|
'Biden resigned, Pelosi was detained. | Contradiction | Some 'huge news' touted in the title of a recent widely-viewed Facebook video would indeed be big - but only if it was real. 'Biden resigned, Pelosi detained,' the title says. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The video itself appears to play the audio of a man answering questions he's reading. 'Is JFK 104 years old?' he says. 'No.' 'Is Justin Trudeau arrested? Yes.' 'Has Obama been arrested? No.' 'Has Pelosi been arrested? No. There's a difference, guys, between the word 'arrested' and 'detained.'' 'Will Biden step down? Yes.' 'Is the real Biden dead? Yes.' President Joe Biden has not resigned, as the video's title claims, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hasn't been detained. Both actions would be huge news events widely covered by the media and yet there are no such reports. Biden continues to act as president, making public statements, tweeting as president, appearing in public as president. On Oct. 26 he joined former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe in the state for a rally as McAuliffe once again seeks the job of governor. Pelosi, meanwhile, is scheduled to hold her weekly briefing with reporters at the Capitol. You can watch it here. We rate this post Pants on Fire! | We rate this post Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says no one has died from the coronavirus in the United States. | Contradiction | An Instagram post making a political point about abortion in the United States muffs the landing by claiming that no one has died from COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. 'Death toll in America,' the March 1 post says. 'Coronavirus 0, abortion 63,000,000.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Though any count of abortions in the United States can't be precise, the abortion number seems to be a reasonable estimate. (Read our 2012 fact-check for details.) But for COVID-19, the post is simply wrong. As of March 3, there have been nine deaths from COVID-19 in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have reported six deaths on their website while the Seattle Times reported three more deaths that afternoon. The victims were all in Washington state. Of course, the Instagram post was published on March 1. But the first death was reported on Feb. 29. Officials announced four more deaths on March 2. We rate this Instagram post False. | We rate this Instagram post False. | []
|
Says no one has died from the coronavirus in the United States. | Contradiction | An Instagram post making a political point about abortion in the United States muffs the landing by claiming that no one has died from COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. 'Death toll in America,' the March 1 post says. 'Coronavirus 0, abortion 63,000,000.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Though any count of abortions in the United States can't be precise, the abortion number seems to be a reasonable estimate. (Read our 2012 fact-check for details.) But for COVID-19, the post is simply wrong. As of March 3, there have been nine deaths from COVID-19 in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have reported six deaths on their website while the Seattle Times reported three more deaths that afternoon. The victims were all in Washington state. Of course, the Instagram post was published on March 1. But the first death was reported on Feb. 29. Officials announced four more deaths on March 2. We rate this Instagram post False. | We rate this Instagram post False. | []
|
Says Nabisco is closing plants in Georgia and New Jersey and 'moving to Mexico' because of Biden's election. | Contradiction | Mondelez International, Nabisco's parent company, announced Feb. 4 that it would close two biscuit bakeries by summer 2021, one in Fair Lawn, N.J., and the other in Atlanta. Social media users linked the company's announcement to President Joe Biden's election. 'Nabisco is closing plants in Georgia and New Jersey moving to Mexico,' reads a Feb. 11 Facebook post. 'Congratulations on electing Biden.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) More than 400 jobs will be lost as a result of the Georgia plant closure, and another 600 people will likely lose their jobs as a result of the New Jersey plant closure. But there is no indication that the company's decision to close the plants was linked to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. (Other fact-checking organizations have also debunked this claim.) And the company says it's not moving jobs or production from those sites to Mexico. Mondelez is based in Chicago, with U.S. headquarters in northern New Jersey. A spokesperson for Mondelez directed PolitiFact to its Feb. 4 statement, which said it would be focusing U.S. production on 'strategically located' bakeries in Richmond, Va., Chicago and Portland, Ore. The company said the New Jersey and Georgia facilities were 'no longer strategic assets from a geographic footprint perspective.' 'Both face significant operational challenges, including aging infrastructure and outdated production capabilities, which would have required significant investment to bring them to the modernized state required for the future,' the statement read. Mondelez said production from the two closing sites would shift its other U.S. bakeries, not abroad. 'No U.S. jobs will go to Mexico related to these two closures, and U.S. biscuit production levels will be maintained,' the company said. | Our ruling Posts claim that Nabisco is closing plants in Georgia and New Jersey and 'moving to Mexico' because of Biden's election. Mondelez, which owns the brand, announced the plant closures Feb. 4, but there is no evidence that they are due to Biden's election. The company said production from the two sites will shift to its other U.S. bakeries, not to Mexico. We rate this claim False. | [
"104219-proof-19-68c043bde2712c86040905851418f016.jpeg"
]
|
Says Nabisco is closing plants in Georgia and New Jersey and 'moving to Mexico' because of Biden's election. | Contradiction | Mondelez International, Nabisco's parent company, announced Feb. 4 that it would close two biscuit bakeries by summer 2021, one in Fair Lawn, N.J., and the other in Atlanta. Social media users linked the company's announcement to President Joe Biden's election. 'Nabisco is closing plants in Georgia and New Jersey moving to Mexico,' reads a Feb. 11 Facebook post. 'Congratulations on electing Biden.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) More than 400 jobs will be lost as a result of the Georgia plant closure, and another 600 people will likely lose their jobs as a result of the New Jersey plant closure. But there is no indication that the company's decision to close the plants was linked to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. (Other fact-checking organizations have also debunked this claim.) And the company says it's not moving jobs or production from those sites to Mexico. Mondelez is based in Chicago, with U.S. headquarters in northern New Jersey. A spokesperson for Mondelez directed PolitiFact to its Feb. 4 statement, which said it would be focusing U.S. production on 'strategically located' bakeries in Richmond, Va., Chicago and Portland, Ore. The company said the New Jersey and Georgia facilities were 'no longer strategic assets from a geographic footprint perspective.' 'Both face significant operational challenges, including aging infrastructure and outdated production capabilities, which would have required significant investment to bring them to the modernized state required for the future,' the statement read. Mondelez said production from the two closing sites would shift its other U.S. bakeries, not abroad. 'No U.S. jobs will go to Mexico related to these two closures, and U.S. biscuit production levels will be maintained,' the company said. | Our ruling Posts claim that Nabisco is closing plants in Georgia and New Jersey and 'moving to Mexico' because of Biden's election. Mondelez, which owns the brand, announced the plant closures Feb. 4, but there is no evidence that they are due to Biden's election. The company said production from the two sites will shift to its other U.S. bakeries, not to Mexico. We rate this claim False. | [
"104219-proof-19-68c043bde2712c86040905851418f016.jpeg"
]
|
Says Nabisco is closing plants in Georgia and New Jersey and 'moving to Mexico' because of Biden's election. | Contradiction | Mondelez International, Nabisco's parent company, announced Feb. 4 that it would close two biscuit bakeries by summer 2021, one in Fair Lawn, N.J., and the other in Atlanta. Social media users linked the company's announcement to President Joe Biden's election. 'Nabisco is closing plants in Georgia and New Jersey moving to Mexico,' reads a Feb. 11 Facebook post. 'Congratulations on electing Biden.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) More than 400 jobs will be lost as a result of the Georgia plant closure, and another 600 people will likely lose their jobs as a result of the New Jersey plant closure. But there is no indication that the company's decision to close the plants was linked to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. (Other fact-checking organizations have also debunked this claim.) And the company says it's not moving jobs or production from those sites to Mexico. Mondelez is based in Chicago, with U.S. headquarters in northern New Jersey. A spokesperson for Mondelez directed PolitiFact to its Feb. 4 statement, which said it would be focusing U.S. production on 'strategically located' bakeries in Richmond, Va., Chicago and Portland, Ore. The company said the New Jersey and Georgia facilities were 'no longer strategic assets from a geographic footprint perspective.' 'Both face significant operational challenges, including aging infrastructure and outdated production capabilities, which would have required significant investment to bring them to the modernized state required for the future,' the statement read. Mondelez said production from the two closing sites would shift its other U.S. bakeries, not abroad. 'No U.S. jobs will go to Mexico related to these two closures, and U.S. biscuit production levels will be maintained,' the company said. | Our ruling Posts claim that Nabisco is closing plants in Georgia and New Jersey and 'moving to Mexico' because of Biden's election. Mondelez, which owns the brand, announced the plant closures Feb. 4, but there is no evidence that they are due to Biden's election. The company said production from the two sites will shift to its other U.S. bakeries, not to Mexico. We rate this claim False. | [
"104219-proof-19-68c043bde2712c86040905851418f016.jpeg"
]
|
Barack Obama 'is the first ex-president to ever speak against his successor. | Contradiction | In a call with past members of his administration, former President Barack Obama criticized the Trump administration for bungling the response to the coronavirus. 'It would have been bad even with the best of governments,' Obama said May 8. 'It has been an absolute chaotic disaster.' Obama's words drew anger from President Donald Trump's supporters, one of whom tweeted on May 10: 'Barack Hussain Obama is the first Ex-President to ever speak against his successor, which was long (a) tradition of decorum and decency.' Trump retweeted the claim, adding the comment: 'He got caught, OBAMAGATE!' He got caught, OBAMAGATE! https://t.co/oV6fum0zIS- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 11, 2020 By tradition, former presidents extend some graciousness to their successors. But there is no hard and fast rule. And as you'll see, former presidents have, when it suited them, criticized the person who followed them into the White House. Hoover's warnings against the New Deal The first example that leaped to mind of three presidential historians we contacted is President Herbert Hoover, who lost to Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. 'He railed against the New Deal, FDR, liberalism and, in some ways, modernity itself, from the time he left office in 1933 until his death in the mid-1960s,' said Jeffrey Engel, director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. At the 1936 Republican convention, Hoover cast Roosevelt and the New Deal as a step toward dictatorship. 'The New Deal may be a revolutionary design to replace the American system with despotism,' Hoover said. 'Their product is the poisoning of Americanism.' A generation later, Harry Truman seized the moment at the Democrats' convention in 1956 to attack his Republican successor, Dwight Eisenhower, Claremont McKenna College's John Pitney noted. 'For three and half years, the Eisenhower administration has been using every trick and device to pry our water power, and our forest, our parks and oil reserves out of the hands of people and into the pockets of a few selfish corporations,' Truman said Aug. 17, 1956. Ford, Carter and Reagan Jump forward to 1977, when Republican Gerald Ford ridiculed the economic policies of the man who ousted him from office, Jimmy Carter. 'Mr. Carter's anti-inflation program came in like a lion,' Ford said three months into Carter's presidency. 'It's going out like a mouse.' Carter carried on the tradition. In November 1982, he said President Ronald Reagan had undermined confidence in America's global leadership. 'There's not that assured feeling now that our country is in the forefront of peace, nuclear arms control, human rights and environmental concern that it was before,' Carter said in a news conference. At the same event, Carter chastised Reagan for faulting Carter for the problems Reagan faced. 'There is always the temptation for an incumbent politician to blame all his mistakes on his predecessor,' Carter said. 'Most are willing to withstand the temptation. Mr. Reagan, apparently, is not.' The idea that Obama is the first president to criticize his successor has been around since at least 2018, when Snopes found it false, citing Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton as recent examples. 'Trump's claim is simply not true under any possible definition of 'speak against' or 'successor,'' said Rutgers University historian David Greenberg. | Our ruling A Twitter post, retweeted by Trump, claimed that Obama 'is the first ex-president to ever speak against his successor.' There are several examples of former presidents criticizing the person who followed them into office. For much of the past century, Republicans have spoken ill of Democrats, and Democrats have done the same with Republicans. While the tradition of exercising restraint exists, it has its limits, and in at least one case, an ex-president spoke out as early as three months into the new administration. We rate this claim False. | [
"104230-proof-31-a247e1f36a17fb8cbd0b4deb568596ba.jpg"
]
|
Barack Obama 'is the first ex-president to ever speak against his successor. | Contradiction | In a call with past members of his administration, former President Barack Obama criticized the Trump administration for bungling the response to the coronavirus. 'It would have been bad even with the best of governments,' Obama said May 8. 'It has been an absolute chaotic disaster.' Obama's words drew anger from President Donald Trump's supporters, one of whom tweeted on May 10: 'Barack Hussain Obama is the first Ex-President to ever speak against his successor, which was long (a) tradition of decorum and decency.' Trump retweeted the claim, adding the comment: 'He got caught, OBAMAGATE!' He got caught, OBAMAGATE! https://t.co/oV6fum0zIS- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 11, 2020 By tradition, former presidents extend some graciousness to their successors. But there is no hard and fast rule. And as you'll see, former presidents have, when it suited them, criticized the person who followed them into the White House. Hoover's warnings against the New Deal The first example that leaped to mind of three presidential historians we contacted is President Herbert Hoover, who lost to Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. 'He railed against the New Deal, FDR, liberalism and, in some ways, modernity itself, from the time he left office in 1933 until his death in the mid-1960s,' said Jeffrey Engel, director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. At the 1936 Republican convention, Hoover cast Roosevelt and the New Deal as a step toward dictatorship. 'The New Deal may be a revolutionary design to replace the American system with despotism,' Hoover said. 'Their product is the poisoning of Americanism.' A generation later, Harry Truman seized the moment at the Democrats' convention in 1956 to attack his Republican successor, Dwight Eisenhower, Claremont McKenna College's John Pitney noted. 'For three and half years, the Eisenhower administration has been using every trick and device to pry our water power, and our forest, our parks and oil reserves out of the hands of people and into the pockets of a few selfish corporations,' Truman said Aug. 17, 1956. Ford, Carter and Reagan Jump forward to 1977, when Republican Gerald Ford ridiculed the economic policies of the man who ousted him from office, Jimmy Carter. 'Mr. Carter's anti-inflation program came in like a lion,' Ford said three months into Carter's presidency. 'It's going out like a mouse.' Carter carried on the tradition. In November 1982, he said President Ronald Reagan had undermined confidence in America's global leadership. 'There's not that assured feeling now that our country is in the forefront of peace, nuclear arms control, human rights and environmental concern that it was before,' Carter said in a news conference. At the same event, Carter chastised Reagan for faulting Carter for the problems Reagan faced. 'There is always the temptation for an incumbent politician to blame all his mistakes on his predecessor,' Carter said. 'Most are willing to withstand the temptation. Mr. Reagan, apparently, is not.' The idea that Obama is the first president to criticize his successor has been around since at least 2018, when Snopes found it false, citing Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton as recent examples. 'Trump's claim is simply not true under any possible definition of 'speak against' or 'successor,'' said Rutgers University historian David Greenberg. | Our ruling A Twitter post, retweeted by Trump, claimed that Obama 'is the first ex-president to ever speak against his successor.' There are several examples of former presidents criticizing the person who followed them into office. For much of the past century, Republicans have spoken ill of Democrats, and Democrats have done the same with Republicans. While the tradition of exercising restraint exists, it has its limits, and in at least one case, an ex-president spoke out as early as three months into the new administration. We rate this claim False. | [
"104230-proof-31-a247e1f36a17fb8cbd0b4deb568596ba.jpg"
]
|
Barack Obama 'is the first ex-president to ever speak against his successor. | Contradiction | In a call with past members of his administration, former President Barack Obama criticized the Trump administration for bungling the response to the coronavirus. 'It would have been bad even with the best of governments,' Obama said May 8. 'It has been an absolute chaotic disaster.' Obama's words drew anger from President Donald Trump's supporters, one of whom tweeted on May 10: 'Barack Hussain Obama is the first Ex-President to ever speak against his successor, which was long (a) tradition of decorum and decency.' Trump retweeted the claim, adding the comment: 'He got caught, OBAMAGATE!' He got caught, OBAMAGATE! https://t.co/oV6fum0zIS- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 11, 2020 By tradition, former presidents extend some graciousness to their successors. But there is no hard and fast rule. And as you'll see, former presidents have, when it suited them, criticized the person who followed them into the White House. Hoover's warnings against the New Deal The first example that leaped to mind of three presidential historians we contacted is President Herbert Hoover, who lost to Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. 'He railed against the New Deal, FDR, liberalism and, in some ways, modernity itself, from the time he left office in 1933 until his death in the mid-1960s,' said Jeffrey Engel, director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. At the 1936 Republican convention, Hoover cast Roosevelt and the New Deal as a step toward dictatorship. 'The New Deal may be a revolutionary design to replace the American system with despotism,' Hoover said. 'Their product is the poisoning of Americanism.' A generation later, Harry Truman seized the moment at the Democrats' convention in 1956 to attack his Republican successor, Dwight Eisenhower, Claremont McKenna College's John Pitney noted. 'For three and half years, the Eisenhower administration has been using every trick and device to pry our water power, and our forest, our parks and oil reserves out of the hands of people and into the pockets of a few selfish corporations,' Truman said Aug. 17, 1956. Ford, Carter and Reagan Jump forward to 1977, when Republican Gerald Ford ridiculed the economic policies of the man who ousted him from office, Jimmy Carter. 'Mr. Carter's anti-inflation program came in like a lion,' Ford said three months into Carter's presidency. 'It's going out like a mouse.' Carter carried on the tradition. In November 1982, he said President Ronald Reagan had undermined confidence in America's global leadership. 'There's not that assured feeling now that our country is in the forefront of peace, nuclear arms control, human rights and environmental concern that it was before,' Carter said in a news conference. At the same event, Carter chastised Reagan for faulting Carter for the problems Reagan faced. 'There is always the temptation for an incumbent politician to blame all his mistakes on his predecessor,' Carter said. 'Most are willing to withstand the temptation. Mr. Reagan, apparently, is not.' The idea that Obama is the first president to criticize his successor has been around since at least 2018, when Snopes found it false, citing Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton as recent examples. 'Trump's claim is simply not true under any possible definition of 'speak against' or 'successor,'' said Rutgers University historian David Greenberg. | Our ruling A Twitter post, retweeted by Trump, claimed that Obama 'is the first ex-president to ever speak against his successor.' There are several examples of former presidents criticizing the person who followed them into office. For much of the past century, Republicans have spoken ill of Democrats, and Democrats have done the same with Republicans. While the tradition of exercising restraint exists, it has its limits, and in at least one case, an ex-president spoke out as early as three months into the new administration. We rate this claim False. | [
"104230-proof-31-a247e1f36a17fb8cbd0b4deb568596ba.jpg"
]
|
Poll watchers in Philadelphia 'were thrown out. | Contradiction | In the final moments of Tuesday's raucous presidential debate, President Donald Trump attempted to undermine confidence in the election by complaining that his supporters had been blocked from observing the first day of in-person early voting in Philadelphia. 'Today there was a big problem,' Trump said on the debate stage. 'In Philadelphia they went in to watch. They're called poll watchers. A very safe, very nice thing. They were thrown out. They weren't allowed to watch. You know why? Because bad things happen in Philadelphia, bad things.' Trump's accusation is full of misinformation. Under state law, poll watchers in Pennsylvania may only observe voting at traditional polling places on Election Day, and they must be certified by the state to do so. But the state hasn't designated any Republican poll watchers yet - that's typically done a few days before an election. And even if the state had, those people wouldn't be allowed to watch anything until Nov. 3. So, what is Trump talking about? Let's unpack his remarks. On Tuesday, Philadelphia opened new satellite elections offices where mail ballots can be requested, completed, and submitted. 'It's a mail-in vote without having to use the mail,' Lisa Deeley, chair of the Philadelphia city commissioners, said outside the Liacouras Center at Temple University, where one of the new offices is located. On Tuesday afternoon, a woman arrived at the satellite office inside Overbrook Elementary School in West Philadelphia, and told a supervisor she was there to monitor 'the integrity of the election.' The supervisor told her she was not allowed inside the building unless she wanted to use the office's services. Again: Poll watchers in Pennsylvania are only allowed to observe voting on Election Day. The woman told The Inquirer she had been hired by the Trump campaign to monitor the West Philadelphia site and calmly stated she had a right to be inside. Once again: She did not. No poll watchers in Pennsylvania will be allowed until Nov. 3. The state also requires that poll watchers be registered to vote in the county where they wish to observe voting. The Trump campaign has been fighting in federal court since July to overturn that requirement, and to get approval for poll watchers to have access to all locations in Pennsylvania where votes are being cast - a move that would open access to sites like the one at the heart of the president's debate night accusations. Satellite offices are a new feature of Pennsylvania elections created under Act 77, a law enacted last year that permits any registered voter to cast a ballot by mail. The satellite offices make it easier for voters to request and submit mail ballots. Previously, voters could only request mail ballots through the mail or in person at the main county elections offices. They now have more places to go. It's also important to note that none of the mail ballots submitted at satellite locations popping up across Pennsylvania in the weeks ahead are allowed to be counted until Election Day under state law. | Our ruling Trump said poll watchers were 'thrown out' of a polling place in Philadelphia. But the incident we witnessed, and any others that occurred Tuesday, took place at satellite offices, not at traditional polling places. And they involved self-appointed observers, not licensed poll watchers. While mail voting was indeed happening in physical locations Tuesday, and Trump supporters tried to watch, that voting wasn't happening at polling places and those supporters weren't poll watchers. Trump either knew or should have known that poll watchers aren't allowed at satellite locations, because his campaign is fighting in federal court right now to change that. His statement is not accurate. We rate it False. | [
"104232-proof-08-c85ba0218b31cf99341cc57ec1db79ae.jpg"
]
|
Poll watchers in Philadelphia 'were thrown out. | Contradiction | In the final moments of Tuesday's raucous presidential debate, President Donald Trump attempted to undermine confidence in the election by complaining that his supporters had been blocked from observing the first day of in-person early voting in Philadelphia. 'Today there was a big problem,' Trump said on the debate stage. 'In Philadelphia they went in to watch. They're called poll watchers. A very safe, very nice thing. They were thrown out. They weren't allowed to watch. You know why? Because bad things happen in Philadelphia, bad things.' Trump's accusation is full of misinformation. Under state law, poll watchers in Pennsylvania may only observe voting at traditional polling places on Election Day, and they must be certified by the state to do so. But the state hasn't designated any Republican poll watchers yet - that's typically done a few days before an election. And even if the state had, those people wouldn't be allowed to watch anything until Nov. 3. So, what is Trump talking about? Let's unpack his remarks. On Tuesday, Philadelphia opened new satellite elections offices where mail ballots can be requested, completed, and submitted. 'It's a mail-in vote without having to use the mail,' Lisa Deeley, chair of the Philadelphia city commissioners, said outside the Liacouras Center at Temple University, where one of the new offices is located. On Tuesday afternoon, a woman arrived at the satellite office inside Overbrook Elementary School in West Philadelphia, and told a supervisor she was there to monitor 'the integrity of the election.' The supervisor told her she was not allowed inside the building unless she wanted to use the office's services. Again: Poll watchers in Pennsylvania are only allowed to observe voting on Election Day. The woman told The Inquirer she had been hired by the Trump campaign to monitor the West Philadelphia site and calmly stated she had a right to be inside. Once again: She did not. No poll watchers in Pennsylvania will be allowed until Nov. 3. The state also requires that poll watchers be registered to vote in the county where they wish to observe voting. The Trump campaign has been fighting in federal court since July to overturn that requirement, and to get approval for poll watchers to have access to all locations in Pennsylvania where votes are being cast - a move that would open access to sites like the one at the heart of the president's debate night accusations. Satellite offices are a new feature of Pennsylvania elections created under Act 77, a law enacted last year that permits any registered voter to cast a ballot by mail. The satellite offices make it easier for voters to request and submit mail ballots. Previously, voters could only request mail ballots through the mail or in person at the main county elections offices. They now have more places to go. It's also important to note that none of the mail ballots submitted at satellite locations popping up across Pennsylvania in the weeks ahead are allowed to be counted until Election Day under state law. | Our ruling Trump said poll watchers were 'thrown out' of a polling place in Philadelphia. But the incident we witnessed, and any others that occurred Tuesday, took place at satellite offices, not at traditional polling places. And they involved self-appointed observers, not licensed poll watchers. While mail voting was indeed happening in physical locations Tuesday, and Trump supporters tried to watch, that voting wasn't happening at polling places and those supporters weren't poll watchers. Trump either knew or should have known that poll watchers aren't allowed at satellite locations, because his campaign is fighting in federal court right now to change that. His statement is not accurate. We rate it False. | [
"104232-proof-08-c85ba0218b31cf99341cc57ec1db79ae.jpg"
]
|
Poll watchers in Philadelphia 'were thrown out. | Contradiction | In the final moments of Tuesday's raucous presidential debate, President Donald Trump attempted to undermine confidence in the election by complaining that his supporters had been blocked from observing the first day of in-person early voting in Philadelphia. 'Today there was a big problem,' Trump said on the debate stage. 'In Philadelphia they went in to watch. They're called poll watchers. A very safe, very nice thing. They were thrown out. They weren't allowed to watch. You know why? Because bad things happen in Philadelphia, bad things.' Trump's accusation is full of misinformation. Under state law, poll watchers in Pennsylvania may only observe voting at traditional polling places on Election Day, and they must be certified by the state to do so. But the state hasn't designated any Republican poll watchers yet - that's typically done a few days before an election. And even if the state had, those people wouldn't be allowed to watch anything until Nov. 3. So, what is Trump talking about? Let's unpack his remarks. On Tuesday, Philadelphia opened new satellite elections offices where mail ballots can be requested, completed, and submitted. 'It's a mail-in vote without having to use the mail,' Lisa Deeley, chair of the Philadelphia city commissioners, said outside the Liacouras Center at Temple University, where one of the new offices is located. On Tuesday afternoon, a woman arrived at the satellite office inside Overbrook Elementary School in West Philadelphia, and told a supervisor she was there to monitor 'the integrity of the election.' The supervisor told her she was not allowed inside the building unless she wanted to use the office's services. Again: Poll watchers in Pennsylvania are only allowed to observe voting on Election Day. The woman told The Inquirer she had been hired by the Trump campaign to monitor the West Philadelphia site and calmly stated she had a right to be inside. Once again: She did not. No poll watchers in Pennsylvania will be allowed until Nov. 3. The state also requires that poll watchers be registered to vote in the county where they wish to observe voting. The Trump campaign has been fighting in federal court since July to overturn that requirement, and to get approval for poll watchers to have access to all locations in Pennsylvania where votes are being cast - a move that would open access to sites like the one at the heart of the president's debate night accusations. Satellite offices are a new feature of Pennsylvania elections created under Act 77, a law enacted last year that permits any registered voter to cast a ballot by mail. The satellite offices make it easier for voters to request and submit mail ballots. Previously, voters could only request mail ballots through the mail or in person at the main county elections offices. They now have more places to go. It's also important to note that none of the mail ballots submitted at satellite locations popping up across Pennsylvania in the weeks ahead are allowed to be counted until Election Day under state law. | Our ruling Trump said poll watchers were 'thrown out' of a polling place in Philadelphia. But the incident we witnessed, and any others that occurred Tuesday, took place at satellite offices, not at traditional polling places. And they involved self-appointed observers, not licensed poll watchers. While mail voting was indeed happening in physical locations Tuesday, and Trump supporters tried to watch, that voting wasn't happening at polling places and those supporters weren't poll watchers. Trump either knew or should have known that poll watchers aren't allowed at satellite locations, because his campaign is fighting in federal court right now to change that. His statement is not accurate. We rate it False. | [
"104232-proof-08-c85ba0218b31cf99341cc57ec1db79ae.jpg"
]
|
'If I didn't INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now. | Contradiction | The images emerging from Kenosha were jarring after Jacob Blake was shot in the back seven times by a police officer and two protesters were shot and killed - all in the span of two days. Buildings in flames. People armed with baseball bats destroying property and looting. Armed vigilante groups roaming the streets with long guns. Police patrolling in armored vehicles and riot gear. But the atmosphere took a distinct turn for the better in the days after the Aug. 25, 2020, shooting that left 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse facing multiple homicide charges. And President Donald Trump says you can thank him for that. 'If I didn't INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now,' Trump tweeted early on Aug. 31, 2020. 'Also, there would have been great death and injury.' It's not a new maneuver from Trump, who has regularly swooped in to claim credit for development projects and other initiatives he had little role in. But this claim is particularly jaw-dropping. His sweeping assertion assumes at least three things to be true. Kenosha was on a trajectory for destruction. No other changes happened that would have improved the Kenosha situation. He alone is responsible for activating the National Guard. Each of these is wrong. Let's break it down. Protests occurred in a limited area This is the most obvious hyperbole in Trump's tweet. (It's also a claim he repeated even more strongly the next day, saying during a Sept. 1 roundtable with Kenosha leaders, 'I come into an area like this and I see the town is burned down.') The events in Kenosha have been tragic and shocking. But there's a big difference between protests damaging a limited area and destroying or altering a large portion of a city of 100,000 people. The protests, even at the peak of the unrest Aug. 25, were largely concentrated in the 1-acre Civic Park and a nearby area a few blocks wide. Though people spilled into nearby neighborhoods after the largest groups were dispersed. That drastically exaggerates the scope of the situation in Kenosha, a city of 28.4 square miles, even at its worst. Many factors in reduction of violence Trump's attempt to claim credit assumes the National Guard presence was the only factor in the lack of violence after the Rittenhouse shooting. There are many reasons that's wrong. The simple makeup of the crowd changed. A group described by Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth as 'a militia' and 'vigilante group' had been patrolling the streets of Kenosha and even standing watch on roofs with long guns the first couple nights after the Blake shooting. On Tuesday, in the hours before the shooting, the 'Kenosha Guard' issued a call on Facebook for 'patriots willing to take up arms and defend out (sic) City tonight from the evil thugs.' That page was removed by Facebook after the Rittenhouse shooting, and the presence of people wearing military gear and openly carrying weapons dropped drastically after the night of chaos that included the shooting, according to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporters who have been on the ground in Kenosha - though citizens with handguns were observed as late as the weekend. During the height of the protests, the vigilante groups and Black Lives Matter protesters were regularly clashing with each other, by hurling insults or worse. Removing half of that equation - for whatever reason that occurred - changed the situation dramatically. There have also been calls for peace from all corners, including Blake's family, at marches and rallies, and - to varying degrees - from Gov. Tony Evers and local officials. In addition, Evers has declared a state of emergency, and local officials have taken steps such as closing off freeway access to better control the area - beyond simply increasing the number of troops (which has also happened). 'The last five days have been closer to normal for Kenosha,' Beth said at an Aug. 31 news conference. 'And really if you go outside a few block area in Kenosha, life has been just like it has been all the time.' Trump didn't send the National Guard All of which brings us to the most fundamental claim here - that Trump dispatched the National Guard. And even that isn't true. The White House described itself as authorizing 2,000 National Guard troops to go to Kenosha. But Maj. Gen. Paul Knapp, who commands the Wisconsin National Guard, said that's not really how that system operates. He described it this way when asked Aug. 31 what role the White House has played in the Kenosha response. 'What I want to re-emphasize is the process is actually a governor-to-governor compact,' Knapp said. 'Through the (Emergency Management Assistance Compact) process we had already started talking to other states (when the White House got involved), it's one of the things we do right away during something like this.' The White House press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment early on Sept. 1. Each state has its own National Guard - as provided for in the Constitution - and the guard has a role at both the state and federal level, according to its website. Governors can call the National Guard into action during local or statewide emergencies, and the president can activate the guard for federal missions. Examples of federal missions given on the website included deployments to Kosovo or the anti-terrorism efforts in the Middle East. But all National Guard members working in Kenosha have been mobilized by Evers or governors in Michigan, Arizona and Alaska as part of the inter-state agreements. They are commanded by Knapp and remain under state control. The Kenosha effort has not been federalized, said Evers spokeswoman Britt Cudaback. In other words, none of the National Guard troops now in Wisconsin have been dispatched or authorized by Trump. And the state-run efforts to bring troops were underway a full day before Trump first had contact with Wisconsin officials. 'The governor had already activated the Wisconsin National Guard to respond in Kenosha and doubled their presence before Trump or his Administration offered federal support,' Cudaback said. The timeline of events in Kenosha makes this crystal clear. The timeline Here are key moments in the Kenosha unrest and the law enforcement response, as detailed by Evers' office and media reports. Times of key events are provided where relevant. Sunday, Aug. 23 5:15 p.m. - Jacob Blake is shot. 9:31 p.m. - Wisconsin Emergency Management authorizes neighboring agencies to assist local law enforcement. Monday, Aug. 24 3:05 a.m. - Kenosha County requests a National Guard Quick Reaction Force, a team trained to deploy anywhere in the state within 12 hours. Evers then formally endorses that request. The National Guard provides 125 troops - the full number who are part of that team. Neighboring jurisdictions provide more than 100 law enforcement officers. Tuesday, Aug. 25 2:33 p.m. - Evers' office sends a bulletin declaring a state of emergency and increasing the National Guard support from 125 to 250. 2:45 p.m. - The Trump administration speaks to Evers (first Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, then Trump himself). Evers ultimately declines offers of federal help. 7:16 p.m. - Trump tweets implying the National Guard was not in Wisconsin - 'Governor should call in the National Guard in Wisconsin. ... End problem FAST!' - though the guard at this point had already been on the ground for more than a day. 11:45 p.m. - Police say Rittenhouse opens fire on protesters, killing two and injuring a third. Wisconsin began coordinating with other states about obtaining additional National Guard resources and support. The Wisconsin State Patrol provides more than 70 officers. Neighboring jurisdictions are still providing more than 100 law enforcement officers. Wednesday, Aug. 26 11 a.m. - Meadows talks to Evers again, with federal authorities ultimately sending FBI and U.S. Marshal support to the area later in the day. Cudaback said as of Aug. 31 this remained the only federal government assistance provided. The Wisconsin National Guard is now providing 500 troops. Neighboring jurisdictions are still providing more than 100 law enforcement officers. The Wisconsin State Patrol is now providing 80 officers. Thursday, Aug. 27 1:30 p.m. - Evers enters an agreement with other states to provide National Guard help as part of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. The Wisconsin National Guard is now providing 750 troops. Friday, Aug. 28 12:01 p.m. - Trump tweets, 'Success: Since the National Guard moved into Kenosha, Wisconsin, two days ago, there has been NO FURTHER VIOLENCE, not even a small problem.' The National Guard had actually been deployed in Wisconsin for four days at this point, not two. The Wisconsin National Guard is now providing 1,000 troops. Arizona, Alabama and Michigan National Guard troops arrive, accounting for at least 500 more guardsman (total of 1,500). All of these troops are under Knapp's command. Knapp said Aug. 31 that those 1,500 National Guard troops remained deployed in Kenosha. The guard members do not make arrests, but 'fulfill roles that allows those (local) law enforcement officers to be freed up' to more active work in the streets, he said. We should also note Trump was taking steps before and after this claim that served more to increase division than limit it. On Aug. 30, Sunday night, he liked a tweet that said 'Rittenhouse is a good example of why I decided to vote for Trump.' Rittenhouse is a Trump supporter. The next day, at a White house briefing, Trump asserted Rittenhouse was 'trying to get away' and was 'violently attacked' before opening fire - a description that ignores the fact Rittenhouse had already allegedly shot and killed a man prior to that point. Repeated claim Trump made a similar claim while visiting Kenosha Sept. 1, saying, 'Violence has stopped since the time the National Guard came - literally when they set their foot on this location it stopped.' The timeline shows this is clearly wrong. The National Guard had been in Kenosha for more than a day when the Rittenhouse shooting occured. | Our ruling Trump said on Twitter, 'If I didn't INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now.' That's wrong on every level. It's a vast exaggeration to say the situation in Kenosha was so dire as to threaten its very existence. And many other factors played a role in the reduced violence in the days before Trump's tweet. But the most fundamental element of this claim is also completely wrong. National Guard troops were en route and even on the ground well before the Trump administration got involved. The National Guard troops ultimately sent were deployed in Wisconsin by Evers and Knapp or sent from other states as part of agreements entered into by the states' governors. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"104241-proof-24-e52221b2ad29f6157533cdfb34610dda.jpg"
]
|
'If I didn't INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now. | Contradiction | The images emerging from Kenosha were jarring after Jacob Blake was shot in the back seven times by a police officer and two protesters were shot and killed - all in the span of two days. Buildings in flames. People armed with baseball bats destroying property and looting. Armed vigilante groups roaming the streets with long guns. Police patrolling in armored vehicles and riot gear. But the atmosphere took a distinct turn for the better in the days after the Aug. 25, 2020, shooting that left 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse facing multiple homicide charges. And President Donald Trump says you can thank him for that. 'If I didn't INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now,' Trump tweeted early on Aug. 31, 2020. 'Also, there would have been great death and injury.' It's not a new maneuver from Trump, who has regularly swooped in to claim credit for development projects and other initiatives he had little role in. But this claim is particularly jaw-dropping. His sweeping assertion assumes at least three things to be true. Kenosha was on a trajectory for destruction. No other changes happened that would have improved the Kenosha situation. He alone is responsible for activating the National Guard. Each of these is wrong. Let's break it down. Protests occurred in a limited area This is the most obvious hyperbole in Trump's tweet. (It's also a claim he repeated even more strongly the next day, saying during a Sept. 1 roundtable with Kenosha leaders, 'I come into an area like this and I see the town is burned down.') The events in Kenosha have been tragic and shocking. But there's a big difference between protests damaging a limited area and destroying or altering a large portion of a city of 100,000 people. The protests, even at the peak of the unrest Aug. 25, were largely concentrated in the 1-acre Civic Park and a nearby area a few blocks wide. Though people spilled into nearby neighborhoods after the largest groups were dispersed. That drastically exaggerates the scope of the situation in Kenosha, a city of 28.4 square miles, even at its worst. Many factors in reduction of violence Trump's attempt to claim credit assumes the National Guard presence was the only factor in the lack of violence after the Rittenhouse shooting. There are many reasons that's wrong. The simple makeup of the crowd changed. A group described by Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth as 'a militia' and 'vigilante group' had been patrolling the streets of Kenosha and even standing watch on roofs with long guns the first couple nights after the Blake shooting. On Tuesday, in the hours before the shooting, the 'Kenosha Guard' issued a call on Facebook for 'patriots willing to take up arms and defend out (sic) City tonight from the evil thugs.' That page was removed by Facebook after the Rittenhouse shooting, and the presence of people wearing military gear and openly carrying weapons dropped drastically after the night of chaos that included the shooting, according to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporters who have been on the ground in Kenosha - though citizens with handguns were observed as late as the weekend. During the height of the protests, the vigilante groups and Black Lives Matter protesters were regularly clashing with each other, by hurling insults or worse. Removing half of that equation - for whatever reason that occurred - changed the situation dramatically. There have also been calls for peace from all corners, including Blake's family, at marches and rallies, and - to varying degrees - from Gov. Tony Evers and local officials. In addition, Evers has declared a state of emergency, and local officials have taken steps such as closing off freeway access to better control the area - beyond simply increasing the number of troops (which has also happened). 'The last five days have been closer to normal for Kenosha,' Beth said at an Aug. 31 news conference. 'And really if you go outside a few block area in Kenosha, life has been just like it has been all the time.' Trump didn't send the National Guard All of which brings us to the most fundamental claim here - that Trump dispatched the National Guard. And even that isn't true. The White House described itself as authorizing 2,000 National Guard troops to go to Kenosha. But Maj. Gen. Paul Knapp, who commands the Wisconsin National Guard, said that's not really how that system operates. He described it this way when asked Aug. 31 what role the White House has played in the Kenosha response. 'What I want to re-emphasize is the process is actually a governor-to-governor compact,' Knapp said. 'Through the (Emergency Management Assistance Compact) process we had already started talking to other states (when the White House got involved), it's one of the things we do right away during something like this.' The White House press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment early on Sept. 1. Each state has its own National Guard - as provided for in the Constitution - and the guard has a role at both the state and federal level, according to its website. Governors can call the National Guard into action during local or statewide emergencies, and the president can activate the guard for federal missions. Examples of federal missions given on the website included deployments to Kosovo or the anti-terrorism efforts in the Middle East. But all National Guard members working in Kenosha have been mobilized by Evers or governors in Michigan, Arizona and Alaska as part of the inter-state agreements. They are commanded by Knapp and remain under state control. The Kenosha effort has not been federalized, said Evers spokeswoman Britt Cudaback. In other words, none of the National Guard troops now in Wisconsin have been dispatched or authorized by Trump. And the state-run efforts to bring troops were underway a full day before Trump first had contact with Wisconsin officials. 'The governor had already activated the Wisconsin National Guard to respond in Kenosha and doubled their presence before Trump or his Administration offered federal support,' Cudaback said. The timeline of events in Kenosha makes this crystal clear. The timeline Here are key moments in the Kenosha unrest and the law enforcement response, as detailed by Evers' office and media reports. Times of key events are provided where relevant. Sunday, Aug. 23 5:15 p.m. - Jacob Blake is shot. 9:31 p.m. - Wisconsin Emergency Management authorizes neighboring agencies to assist local law enforcement. Monday, Aug. 24 3:05 a.m. - Kenosha County requests a National Guard Quick Reaction Force, a team trained to deploy anywhere in the state within 12 hours. Evers then formally endorses that request. The National Guard provides 125 troops - the full number who are part of that team. Neighboring jurisdictions provide more than 100 law enforcement officers. Tuesday, Aug. 25 2:33 p.m. - Evers' office sends a bulletin declaring a state of emergency and increasing the National Guard support from 125 to 250. 2:45 p.m. - The Trump administration speaks to Evers (first Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, then Trump himself). Evers ultimately declines offers of federal help. 7:16 p.m. - Trump tweets implying the National Guard was not in Wisconsin - 'Governor should call in the National Guard in Wisconsin. ... End problem FAST!' - though the guard at this point had already been on the ground for more than a day. 11:45 p.m. - Police say Rittenhouse opens fire on protesters, killing two and injuring a third. Wisconsin began coordinating with other states about obtaining additional National Guard resources and support. The Wisconsin State Patrol provides more than 70 officers. Neighboring jurisdictions are still providing more than 100 law enforcement officers. Wednesday, Aug. 26 11 a.m. - Meadows talks to Evers again, with federal authorities ultimately sending FBI and U.S. Marshal support to the area later in the day. Cudaback said as of Aug. 31 this remained the only federal government assistance provided. The Wisconsin National Guard is now providing 500 troops. Neighboring jurisdictions are still providing more than 100 law enforcement officers. The Wisconsin State Patrol is now providing 80 officers. Thursday, Aug. 27 1:30 p.m. - Evers enters an agreement with other states to provide National Guard help as part of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. The Wisconsin National Guard is now providing 750 troops. Friday, Aug. 28 12:01 p.m. - Trump tweets, 'Success: Since the National Guard moved into Kenosha, Wisconsin, two days ago, there has been NO FURTHER VIOLENCE, not even a small problem.' The National Guard had actually been deployed in Wisconsin for four days at this point, not two. The Wisconsin National Guard is now providing 1,000 troops. Arizona, Alabama and Michigan National Guard troops arrive, accounting for at least 500 more guardsman (total of 1,500). All of these troops are under Knapp's command. Knapp said Aug. 31 that those 1,500 National Guard troops remained deployed in Kenosha. The guard members do not make arrests, but 'fulfill roles that allows those (local) law enforcement officers to be freed up' to more active work in the streets, he said. We should also note Trump was taking steps before and after this claim that served more to increase division than limit it. On Aug. 30, Sunday night, he liked a tweet that said 'Rittenhouse is a good example of why I decided to vote for Trump.' Rittenhouse is a Trump supporter. The next day, at a White house briefing, Trump asserted Rittenhouse was 'trying to get away' and was 'violently attacked' before opening fire - a description that ignores the fact Rittenhouse had already allegedly shot and killed a man prior to that point. Repeated claim Trump made a similar claim while visiting Kenosha Sept. 1, saying, 'Violence has stopped since the time the National Guard came - literally when they set their foot on this location it stopped.' The timeline shows this is clearly wrong. The National Guard had been in Kenosha for more than a day when the Rittenhouse shooting occured. | Our ruling Trump said on Twitter, 'If I didn't INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now.' That's wrong on every level. It's a vast exaggeration to say the situation in Kenosha was so dire as to threaten its very existence. And many other factors played a role in the reduced violence in the days before Trump's tweet. But the most fundamental element of this claim is also completely wrong. National Guard troops were en route and even on the ground well before the Trump administration got involved. The National Guard troops ultimately sent were deployed in Wisconsin by Evers and Knapp or sent from other states as part of agreements entered into by the states' governors. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"104241-proof-24-e52221b2ad29f6157533cdfb34610dda.jpg"
]
|
'If I didn't INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now. | Contradiction | The images emerging from Kenosha were jarring after Jacob Blake was shot in the back seven times by a police officer and two protesters were shot and killed - all in the span of two days. Buildings in flames. People armed with baseball bats destroying property and looting. Armed vigilante groups roaming the streets with long guns. Police patrolling in armored vehicles and riot gear. But the atmosphere took a distinct turn for the better in the days after the Aug. 25, 2020, shooting that left 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse facing multiple homicide charges. And President Donald Trump says you can thank him for that. 'If I didn't INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now,' Trump tweeted early on Aug. 31, 2020. 'Also, there would have been great death and injury.' It's not a new maneuver from Trump, who has regularly swooped in to claim credit for development projects and other initiatives he had little role in. But this claim is particularly jaw-dropping. His sweeping assertion assumes at least three things to be true. Kenosha was on a trajectory for destruction. No other changes happened that would have improved the Kenosha situation. He alone is responsible for activating the National Guard. Each of these is wrong. Let's break it down. Protests occurred in a limited area This is the most obvious hyperbole in Trump's tweet. (It's also a claim he repeated even more strongly the next day, saying during a Sept. 1 roundtable with Kenosha leaders, 'I come into an area like this and I see the town is burned down.') The events in Kenosha have been tragic and shocking. But there's a big difference between protests damaging a limited area and destroying or altering a large portion of a city of 100,000 people. The protests, even at the peak of the unrest Aug. 25, were largely concentrated in the 1-acre Civic Park and a nearby area a few blocks wide. Though people spilled into nearby neighborhoods after the largest groups were dispersed. That drastically exaggerates the scope of the situation in Kenosha, a city of 28.4 square miles, even at its worst. Many factors in reduction of violence Trump's attempt to claim credit assumes the National Guard presence was the only factor in the lack of violence after the Rittenhouse shooting. There are many reasons that's wrong. The simple makeup of the crowd changed. A group described by Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth as 'a militia' and 'vigilante group' had been patrolling the streets of Kenosha and even standing watch on roofs with long guns the first couple nights after the Blake shooting. On Tuesday, in the hours before the shooting, the 'Kenosha Guard' issued a call on Facebook for 'patriots willing to take up arms and defend out (sic) City tonight from the evil thugs.' That page was removed by Facebook after the Rittenhouse shooting, and the presence of people wearing military gear and openly carrying weapons dropped drastically after the night of chaos that included the shooting, according to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporters who have been on the ground in Kenosha - though citizens with handguns were observed as late as the weekend. During the height of the protests, the vigilante groups and Black Lives Matter protesters were regularly clashing with each other, by hurling insults or worse. Removing half of that equation - for whatever reason that occurred - changed the situation dramatically. There have also been calls for peace from all corners, including Blake's family, at marches and rallies, and - to varying degrees - from Gov. Tony Evers and local officials. In addition, Evers has declared a state of emergency, and local officials have taken steps such as closing off freeway access to better control the area - beyond simply increasing the number of troops (which has also happened). 'The last five days have been closer to normal for Kenosha,' Beth said at an Aug. 31 news conference. 'And really if you go outside a few block area in Kenosha, life has been just like it has been all the time.' Trump didn't send the National Guard All of which brings us to the most fundamental claim here - that Trump dispatched the National Guard. And even that isn't true. The White House described itself as authorizing 2,000 National Guard troops to go to Kenosha. But Maj. Gen. Paul Knapp, who commands the Wisconsin National Guard, said that's not really how that system operates. He described it this way when asked Aug. 31 what role the White House has played in the Kenosha response. 'What I want to re-emphasize is the process is actually a governor-to-governor compact,' Knapp said. 'Through the (Emergency Management Assistance Compact) process we had already started talking to other states (when the White House got involved), it's one of the things we do right away during something like this.' The White House press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment early on Sept. 1. Each state has its own National Guard - as provided for in the Constitution - and the guard has a role at both the state and federal level, according to its website. Governors can call the National Guard into action during local or statewide emergencies, and the president can activate the guard for federal missions. Examples of federal missions given on the website included deployments to Kosovo or the anti-terrorism efforts in the Middle East. But all National Guard members working in Kenosha have been mobilized by Evers or governors in Michigan, Arizona and Alaska as part of the inter-state agreements. They are commanded by Knapp and remain under state control. The Kenosha effort has not been federalized, said Evers spokeswoman Britt Cudaback. In other words, none of the National Guard troops now in Wisconsin have been dispatched or authorized by Trump. And the state-run efforts to bring troops were underway a full day before Trump first had contact with Wisconsin officials. 'The governor had already activated the Wisconsin National Guard to respond in Kenosha and doubled their presence before Trump or his Administration offered federal support,' Cudaback said. The timeline of events in Kenosha makes this crystal clear. The timeline Here are key moments in the Kenosha unrest and the law enforcement response, as detailed by Evers' office and media reports. Times of key events are provided where relevant. Sunday, Aug. 23 5:15 p.m. - Jacob Blake is shot. 9:31 p.m. - Wisconsin Emergency Management authorizes neighboring agencies to assist local law enforcement. Monday, Aug. 24 3:05 a.m. - Kenosha County requests a National Guard Quick Reaction Force, a team trained to deploy anywhere in the state within 12 hours. Evers then formally endorses that request. The National Guard provides 125 troops - the full number who are part of that team. Neighboring jurisdictions provide more than 100 law enforcement officers. Tuesday, Aug. 25 2:33 p.m. - Evers' office sends a bulletin declaring a state of emergency and increasing the National Guard support from 125 to 250. 2:45 p.m. - The Trump administration speaks to Evers (first Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, then Trump himself). Evers ultimately declines offers of federal help. 7:16 p.m. - Trump tweets implying the National Guard was not in Wisconsin - 'Governor should call in the National Guard in Wisconsin. ... End problem FAST!' - though the guard at this point had already been on the ground for more than a day. 11:45 p.m. - Police say Rittenhouse opens fire on protesters, killing two and injuring a third. Wisconsin began coordinating with other states about obtaining additional National Guard resources and support. The Wisconsin State Patrol provides more than 70 officers. Neighboring jurisdictions are still providing more than 100 law enforcement officers. Wednesday, Aug. 26 11 a.m. - Meadows talks to Evers again, with federal authorities ultimately sending FBI and U.S. Marshal support to the area later in the day. Cudaback said as of Aug. 31 this remained the only federal government assistance provided. The Wisconsin National Guard is now providing 500 troops. Neighboring jurisdictions are still providing more than 100 law enforcement officers. The Wisconsin State Patrol is now providing 80 officers. Thursday, Aug. 27 1:30 p.m. - Evers enters an agreement with other states to provide National Guard help as part of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. The Wisconsin National Guard is now providing 750 troops. Friday, Aug. 28 12:01 p.m. - Trump tweets, 'Success: Since the National Guard moved into Kenosha, Wisconsin, two days ago, there has been NO FURTHER VIOLENCE, not even a small problem.' The National Guard had actually been deployed in Wisconsin for four days at this point, not two. The Wisconsin National Guard is now providing 1,000 troops. Arizona, Alabama and Michigan National Guard troops arrive, accounting for at least 500 more guardsman (total of 1,500). All of these troops are under Knapp's command. Knapp said Aug. 31 that those 1,500 National Guard troops remained deployed in Kenosha. The guard members do not make arrests, but 'fulfill roles that allows those (local) law enforcement officers to be freed up' to more active work in the streets, he said. We should also note Trump was taking steps before and after this claim that served more to increase division than limit it. On Aug. 30, Sunday night, he liked a tweet that said 'Rittenhouse is a good example of why I decided to vote for Trump.' Rittenhouse is a Trump supporter. The next day, at a White house briefing, Trump asserted Rittenhouse was 'trying to get away' and was 'violently attacked' before opening fire - a description that ignores the fact Rittenhouse had already allegedly shot and killed a man prior to that point. Repeated claim Trump made a similar claim while visiting Kenosha Sept. 1, saying, 'Violence has stopped since the time the National Guard came - literally when they set their foot on this location it stopped.' The timeline shows this is clearly wrong. The National Guard had been in Kenosha for more than a day when the Rittenhouse shooting occured. | Our ruling Trump said on Twitter, 'If I didn't INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now.' That's wrong on every level. It's a vast exaggeration to say the situation in Kenosha was so dire as to threaten its very existence. And many other factors played a role in the reduced violence in the days before Trump's tweet. But the most fundamental element of this claim is also completely wrong. National Guard troops were en route and even on the ground well before the Trump administration got involved. The National Guard troops ultimately sent were deployed in Wisconsin by Evers and Knapp or sent from other states as part of agreements entered into by the states' governors. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"104241-proof-24-e52221b2ad29f6157533cdfb34610dda.jpg"
]
|
'If I didn't INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now. | Contradiction | The images emerging from Kenosha were jarring after Jacob Blake was shot in the back seven times by a police officer and two protesters were shot and killed - all in the span of two days. Buildings in flames. People armed with baseball bats destroying property and looting. Armed vigilante groups roaming the streets with long guns. Police patrolling in armored vehicles and riot gear. But the atmosphere took a distinct turn for the better in the days after the Aug. 25, 2020, shooting that left 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse facing multiple homicide charges. And President Donald Trump says you can thank him for that. 'If I didn't INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now,' Trump tweeted early on Aug. 31, 2020. 'Also, there would have been great death and injury.' It's not a new maneuver from Trump, who has regularly swooped in to claim credit for development projects and other initiatives he had little role in. But this claim is particularly jaw-dropping. His sweeping assertion assumes at least three things to be true. Kenosha was on a trajectory for destruction. No other changes happened that would have improved the Kenosha situation. He alone is responsible for activating the National Guard. Each of these is wrong. Let's break it down. Protests occurred in a limited area This is the most obvious hyperbole in Trump's tweet. (It's also a claim he repeated even more strongly the next day, saying during a Sept. 1 roundtable with Kenosha leaders, 'I come into an area like this and I see the town is burned down.') The events in Kenosha have been tragic and shocking. But there's a big difference between protests damaging a limited area and destroying or altering a large portion of a city of 100,000 people. The protests, even at the peak of the unrest Aug. 25, were largely concentrated in the 1-acre Civic Park and a nearby area a few blocks wide. Though people spilled into nearby neighborhoods after the largest groups were dispersed. That drastically exaggerates the scope of the situation in Kenosha, a city of 28.4 square miles, even at its worst. Many factors in reduction of violence Trump's attempt to claim credit assumes the National Guard presence was the only factor in the lack of violence after the Rittenhouse shooting. There are many reasons that's wrong. The simple makeup of the crowd changed. A group described by Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth as 'a militia' and 'vigilante group' had been patrolling the streets of Kenosha and even standing watch on roofs with long guns the first couple nights after the Blake shooting. On Tuesday, in the hours before the shooting, the 'Kenosha Guard' issued a call on Facebook for 'patriots willing to take up arms and defend out (sic) City tonight from the evil thugs.' That page was removed by Facebook after the Rittenhouse shooting, and the presence of people wearing military gear and openly carrying weapons dropped drastically after the night of chaos that included the shooting, according to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporters who have been on the ground in Kenosha - though citizens with handguns were observed as late as the weekend. During the height of the protests, the vigilante groups and Black Lives Matter protesters were regularly clashing with each other, by hurling insults or worse. Removing half of that equation - for whatever reason that occurred - changed the situation dramatically. There have also been calls for peace from all corners, including Blake's family, at marches and rallies, and - to varying degrees - from Gov. Tony Evers and local officials. In addition, Evers has declared a state of emergency, and local officials have taken steps such as closing off freeway access to better control the area - beyond simply increasing the number of troops (which has also happened). 'The last five days have been closer to normal for Kenosha,' Beth said at an Aug. 31 news conference. 'And really if you go outside a few block area in Kenosha, life has been just like it has been all the time.' Trump didn't send the National Guard All of which brings us to the most fundamental claim here - that Trump dispatched the National Guard. And even that isn't true. The White House described itself as authorizing 2,000 National Guard troops to go to Kenosha. But Maj. Gen. Paul Knapp, who commands the Wisconsin National Guard, said that's not really how that system operates. He described it this way when asked Aug. 31 what role the White House has played in the Kenosha response. 'What I want to re-emphasize is the process is actually a governor-to-governor compact,' Knapp said. 'Through the (Emergency Management Assistance Compact) process we had already started talking to other states (when the White House got involved), it's one of the things we do right away during something like this.' The White House press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment early on Sept. 1. Each state has its own National Guard - as provided for in the Constitution - and the guard has a role at both the state and federal level, according to its website. Governors can call the National Guard into action during local or statewide emergencies, and the president can activate the guard for federal missions. Examples of federal missions given on the website included deployments to Kosovo or the anti-terrorism efforts in the Middle East. But all National Guard members working in Kenosha have been mobilized by Evers or governors in Michigan, Arizona and Alaska as part of the inter-state agreements. They are commanded by Knapp and remain under state control. The Kenosha effort has not been federalized, said Evers spokeswoman Britt Cudaback. In other words, none of the National Guard troops now in Wisconsin have been dispatched or authorized by Trump. And the state-run efforts to bring troops were underway a full day before Trump first had contact with Wisconsin officials. 'The governor had already activated the Wisconsin National Guard to respond in Kenosha and doubled their presence before Trump or his Administration offered federal support,' Cudaback said. The timeline of events in Kenosha makes this crystal clear. The timeline Here are key moments in the Kenosha unrest and the law enforcement response, as detailed by Evers' office and media reports. Times of key events are provided where relevant. Sunday, Aug. 23 5:15 p.m. - Jacob Blake is shot. 9:31 p.m. - Wisconsin Emergency Management authorizes neighboring agencies to assist local law enforcement. Monday, Aug. 24 3:05 a.m. - Kenosha County requests a National Guard Quick Reaction Force, a team trained to deploy anywhere in the state within 12 hours. Evers then formally endorses that request. The National Guard provides 125 troops - the full number who are part of that team. Neighboring jurisdictions provide more than 100 law enforcement officers. Tuesday, Aug. 25 2:33 p.m. - Evers' office sends a bulletin declaring a state of emergency and increasing the National Guard support from 125 to 250. 2:45 p.m. - The Trump administration speaks to Evers (first Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, then Trump himself). Evers ultimately declines offers of federal help. 7:16 p.m. - Trump tweets implying the National Guard was not in Wisconsin - 'Governor should call in the National Guard in Wisconsin. ... End problem FAST!' - though the guard at this point had already been on the ground for more than a day. 11:45 p.m. - Police say Rittenhouse opens fire on protesters, killing two and injuring a third. Wisconsin began coordinating with other states about obtaining additional National Guard resources and support. The Wisconsin State Patrol provides more than 70 officers. Neighboring jurisdictions are still providing more than 100 law enforcement officers. Wednesday, Aug. 26 11 a.m. - Meadows talks to Evers again, with federal authorities ultimately sending FBI and U.S. Marshal support to the area later in the day. Cudaback said as of Aug. 31 this remained the only federal government assistance provided. The Wisconsin National Guard is now providing 500 troops. Neighboring jurisdictions are still providing more than 100 law enforcement officers. The Wisconsin State Patrol is now providing 80 officers. Thursday, Aug. 27 1:30 p.m. - Evers enters an agreement with other states to provide National Guard help as part of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. The Wisconsin National Guard is now providing 750 troops. Friday, Aug. 28 12:01 p.m. - Trump tweets, 'Success: Since the National Guard moved into Kenosha, Wisconsin, two days ago, there has been NO FURTHER VIOLENCE, not even a small problem.' The National Guard had actually been deployed in Wisconsin for four days at this point, not two. The Wisconsin National Guard is now providing 1,000 troops. Arizona, Alabama and Michigan National Guard troops arrive, accounting for at least 500 more guardsman (total of 1,500). All of these troops are under Knapp's command. Knapp said Aug. 31 that those 1,500 National Guard troops remained deployed in Kenosha. The guard members do not make arrests, but 'fulfill roles that allows those (local) law enforcement officers to be freed up' to more active work in the streets, he said. We should also note Trump was taking steps before and after this claim that served more to increase division than limit it. On Aug. 30, Sunday night, he liked a tweet that said 'Rittenhouse is a good example of why I decided to vote for Trump.' Rittenhouse is a Trump supporter. The next day, at a White house briefing, Trump asserted Rittenhouse was 'trying to get away' and was 'violently attacked' before opening fire - a description that ignores the fact Rittenhouse had already allegedly shot and killed a man prior to that point. Repeated claim Trump made a similar claim while visiting Kenosha Sept. 1, saying, 'Violence has stopped since the time the National Guard came - literally when they set their foot on this location it stopped.' The timeline shows this is clearly wrong. The National Guard had been in Kenosha for more than a day when the Rittenhouse shooting occured. | Our ruling Trump said on Twitter, 'If I didn't INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now.' That's wrong on every level. It's a vast exaggeration to say the situation in Kenosha was so dire as to threaten its very existence. And many other factors played a role in the reduced violence in the days before Trump's tweet. But the most fundamental element of this claim is also completely wrong. National Guard troops were en route and even on the ground well before the Trump administration got involved. The National Guard troops ultimately sent were deployed in Wisconsin by Evers and Knapp or sent from other states as part of agreements entered into by the states' governors. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"104241-proof-24-e52221b2ad29f6157533cdfb34610dda.jpg"
]
|
'Sweden has zero lockdown' and 'is in no worse shape than Denmark or Norway,' which are in lockdown. | Contradiction | Attacked by the coronavirus, superpowers such as the United States retreated into lockdown, deeming it the smartest way to stop the spread of the disease. Sweden, which hasn't been in a shooting war in two centuries, faced the enemy by arming its citizens mostly with guidelines, not stay-at-home orders. That strategy, according to a widely circulated Facebook post, has been as effective as the shutdown policy adopted by two of Sweden's neighbors. 'Sweden has zero lockdown' but 'is in no worse shape than Denmark or Norway, which are currently experiencing full lockdown,' the post claims. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) On key data points, each of which has limitations, Sweden is faring worse than Denmark and Norway. The Swedish approach Sweden has a population of 10 million people, nearly nine out of 10 of whom live in urban areas. As we reported in a fact-check comparing Sweden with Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, Sweden has imposed no lockdown and no quarantines, although gatherings of more than 50 people are banned. Elementary schools, bars, restaurants and businesses are still open, though with social distancing and other safety measures encouraged. What's happening in Sweden seems like something closer to life as most Americans remember it before much of the country was shut down. The idea in Sweden is to essentially pursue herd immunity - let the virus spread as slowly as possible while sheltering the elderly and the vulnerable until much of the population becomes naturally immune, or a vaccine becomes available. In contrast, Denmark and Norway closed their restaurants and ski slopes and told all students to stay home. Norway required most people returning from abroad to enter a two-week quarantine and limited groups outdoors to no more than five people. Denmark closed its borders, sent public workers home with pay and encouraged all other employees to work from home. Comparing the COVID numbers Here are some of the major metrics on how Sweden (which also borders Finland) compares with Denmark and Norway. We're including the United States for informational value. The figures are from Our World in Data. That research organization is funded by philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates and is led by Max Roser, who is director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Global Development at the University of Oxford. All data are as of April 19, the date of the Facebook post. Confirmed infection rate: Sweden rising faster Sweden has a higher confirmed infection rate than Denmark and Norway. The measure is the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases per million people. United States: 2,220.79 Sweden: 1,368.61 Norway: 1,288.27 Denmark: 1,250.3 The differences among Sweden, Norway and Denmark are not significant, Jennifer Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told PolitiFact. But the total number of confirmed cases is increasing faster in Sweden than in Norway and Denmark - even though Sweden is doing less testing per 1,000 people than Norway and Denmark. Anders Tegnell, the epidemiologist who is credited with developing Sweden's COVID-19 strategy, says infection rate is an unreliable measure of how a country is doing. 'The recorded infection rate depends hugely on the number of tests performed and what indications for testing that are used,' Tegnell, the director of the Swedish Public Health Agency, told PolitiFact for a previous fact-check. Helen Jenkins, a Boston University professor of biostatistics, also told us she wouldn't rely on that measure because of how much testing varies among countries. Death rates: Sweden higher One way to compare COVID-19 deaths is the ratio of confirmed deaths to confirmed cases. Sweden's is more than twice as high as Denmark's and more than five times higher than Norway's. Sweden: 10.93% United States: 5.29% Denmark: 4.78% Norway: 2.12% Even though this case fatality rate is commonly discussed, during an outbreak it is a poor measure of the true risk of death, Our World in Data says. That's because the rate relies on the number of confirmed cases, and many cases are not confirmed. And it relies on the total number of deaths; and with COVID-19, some people who are sick will die soon but have not yet died. Another measure is COVID-19 deaths per million people. Again, Sweden's is higher than Denmark's and Norway's. Sweden: 149.61 United States: 117.55 Denmark: 59.74 Norway: 27.3 This per-capita death rate 'is a better measure of the severity of the issue,' Kates said. Per capita case rates may, or may not, include everyone who needs to be tested, but not everyone who gets infected will get sick or die, she said. And deaths reported are less dependent on testing capacity than cases. Tegnell has said Sweden's death toll 'is not a failure for the overall strategy,' but rather 'a failure to protect our elderly who live in care homes.' A view from one Stockholm resident Overall, Jenkins cautioned against drawing conclusions on comparing the three countries, given that the outbreak is still unfolding. 'This is not over yet; in fact, it's just starting,' she told PolitiFact. 'Hard to judge the full impact of lockdown or not right at the moment.' Another expert, Paul Franks, a genetic-epidemiology professor at Lund University in Sweden, wrote on April 23 that studies indicate that 'we should soon expect infections and deaths in Stockholm,' Sweden's largest city, 'to drop substantially in the coming weeks.' Peter Callerfelt, 43, who owns a recruiting consulting business in Stockholm, said he believes it's too soon to judge Sweden's policy. He appreciates that he and his wife can still commute to their offices, where they are almost completely isolated from co-workers, and that their daughter can still go to kindergarten. Callerfelt told PolitiFact that Sweden's policy is set by the country's health experts, not elected officials, and that citizens respond to the experts' recommendations. He wonders whether people in Norway and Denmark would comply with a second shutdown if their countries reopened and then the virus reappeared, whereas Sweden has more flexibility. 'If this is not enough, you can still have the ace left and say, OK, now we're doing a total lockdown. In the other countries, they have nothing left to play,' Callerfelt said. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden has no lockdown and 'is in no worse shape than Denmark or Norway,' which are in lockdown. It goes too far to say Sweden has no lockdown, in that gatherings of more than 50 people are prohibited. The claim has an element of truth in that Sweden has roughly the same number of confirmed cases per million people as Denmark and Norway. But it's misleading to say that Sweden is doing no worse. The total number of confirmed cases is increasing at a faster rate in Sweden than in Norway and Denmark - even though Sweden is doing less testing per 1,000 people than Norway and Denmark. Moreover, Sweden has higher death rates. For a statement with some truth that ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is Mostly False. | [
"104247-proof-13-2b2162aaca76fcd6d3c829289c6e0e65.jpg"
]
|
'Sweden has zero lockdown' and 'is in no worse shape than Denmark or Norway,' which are in lockdown. | Contradiction | Attacked by the coronavirus, superpowers such as the United States retreated into lockdown, deeming it the smartest way to stop the spread of the disease. Sweden, which hasn't been in a shooting war in two centuries, faced the enemy by arming its citizens mostly with guidelines, not stay-at-home orders. That strategy, according to a widely circulated Facebook post, has been as effective as the shutdown policy adopted by two of Sweden's neighbors. 'Sweden has zero lockdown' but 'is in no worse shape than Denmark or Norway, which are currently experiencing full lockdown,' the post claims. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) On key data points, each of which has limitations, Sweden is faring worse than Denmark and Norway. The Swedish approach Sweden has a population of 10 million people, nearly nine out of 10 of whom live in urban areas. As we reported in a fact-check comparing Sweden with Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, Sweden has imposed no lockdown and no quarantines, although gatherings of more than 50 people are banned. Elementary schools, bars, restaurants and businesses are still open, though with social distancing and other safety measures encouraged. What's happening in Sweden seems like something closer to life as most Americans remember it before much of the country was shut down. The idea in Sweden is to essentially pursue herd immunity - let the virus spread as slowly as possible while sheltering the elderly and the vulnerable until much of the population becomes naturally immune, or a vaccine becomes available. In contrast, Denmark and Norway closed their restaurants and ski slopes and told all students to stay home. Norway required most people returning from abroad to enter a two-week quarantine and limited groups outdoors to no more than five people. Denmark closed its borders, sent public workers home with pay and encouraged all other employees to work from home. Comparing the COVID numbers Here are some of the major metrics on how Sweden (which also borders Finland) compares with Denmark and Norway. We're including the United States for informational value. The figures are from Our World in Data. That research organization is funded by philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates and is led by Max Roser, who is director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Global Development at the University of Oxford. All data are as of April 19, the date of the Facebook post. Confirmed infection rate: Sweden rising faster Sweden has a higher confirmed infection rate than Denmark and Norway. The measure is the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases per million people. United States: 2,220.79 Sweden: 1,368.61 Norway: 1,288.27 Denmark: 1,250.3 The differences among Sweden, Norway and Denmark are not significant, Jennifer Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told PolitiFact. But the total number of confirmed cases is increasing faster in Sweden than in Norway and Denmark - even though Sweden is doing less testing per 1,000 people than Norway and Denmark. Anders Tegnell, the epidemiologist who is credited with developing Sweden's COVID-19 strategy, says infection rate is an unreliable measure of how a country is doing. 'The recorded infection rate depends hugely on the number of tests performed and what indications for testing that are used,' Tegnell, the director of the Swedish Public Health Agency, told PolitiFact for a previous fact-check. Helen Jenkins, a Boston University professor of biostatistics, also told us she wouldn't rely on that measure because of how much testing varies among countries. Death rates: Sweden higher One way to compare COVID-19 deaths is the ratio of confirmed deaths to confirmed cases. Sweden's is more than twice as high as Denmark's and more than five times higher than Norway's. Sweden: 10.93% United States: 5.29% Denmark: 4.78% Norway: 2.12% Even though this case fatality rate is commonly discussed, during an outbreak it is a poor measure of the true risk of death, Our World in Data says. That's because the rate relies on the number of confirmed cases, and many cases are not confirmed. And it relies on the total number of deaths; and with COVID-19, some people who are sick will die soon but have not yet died. Another measure is COVID-19 deaths per million people. Again, Sweden's is higher than Denmark's and Norway's. Sweden: 149.61 United States: 117.55 Denmark: 59.74 Norway: 27.3 This per-capita death rate 'is a better measure of the severity of the issue,' Kates said. Per capita case rates may, or may not, include everyone who needs to be tested, but not everyone who gets infected will get sick or die, she said. And deaths reported are less dependent on testing capacity than cases. Tegnell has said Sweden's death toll 'is not a failure for the overall strategy,' but rather 'a failure to protect our elderly who live in care homes.' A view from one Stockholm resident Overall, Jenkins cautioned against drawing conclusions on comparing the three countries, given that the outbreak is still unfolding. 'This is not over yet; in fact, it's just starting,' she told PolitiFact. 'Hard to judge the full impact of lockdown or not right at the moment.' Another expert, Paul Franks, a genetic-epidemiology professor at Lund University in Sweden, wrote on April 23 that studies indicate that 'we should soon expect infections and deaths in Stockholm,' Sweden's largest city, 'to drop substantially in the coming weeks.' Peter Callerfelt, 43, who owns a recruiting consulting business in Stockholm, said he believes it's too soon to judge Sweden's policy. He appreciates that he and his wife can still commute to their offices, where they are almost completely isolated from co-workers, and that their daughter can still go to kindergarten. Callerfelt told PolitiFact that Sweden's policy is set by the country's health experts, not elected officials, and that citizens respond to the experts' recommendations. He wonders whether people in Norway and Denmark would comply with a second shutdown if their countries reopened and then the virus reappeared, whereas Sweden has more flexibility. 'If this is not enough, you can still have the ace left and say, OK, now we're doing a total lockdown. In the other countries, they have nothing left to play,' Callerfelt said. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden has no lockdown and 'is in no worse shape than Denmark or Norway,' which are in lockdown. It goes too far to say Sweden has no lockdown, in that gatherings of more than 50 people are prohibited. The claim has an element of truth in that Sweden has roughly the same number of confirmed cases per million people as Denmark and Norway. But it's misleading to say that Sweden is doing no worse. The total number of confirmed cases is increasing at a faster rate in Sweden than in Norway and Denmark - even though Sweden is doing less testing per 1,000 people than Norway and Denmark. Moreover, Sweden has higher death rates. For a statement with some truth that ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is Mostly False. | [
"104247-proof-13-2b2162aaca76fcd6d3c829289c6e0e65.jpg"
]
|
'Sweden has zero lockdown' and 'is in no worse shape than Denmark or Norway,' which are in lockdown. | Contradiction | Attacked by the coronavirus, superpowers such as the United States retreated into lockdown, deeming it the smartest way to stop the spread of the disease. Sweden, which hasn't been in a shooting war in two centuries, faced the enemy by arming its citizens mostly with guidelines, not stay-at-home orders. That strategy, according to a widely circulated Facebook post, has been as effective as the shutdown policy adopted by two of Sweden's neighbors. 'Sweden has zero lockdown' but 'is in no worse shape than Denmark or Norway, which are currently experiencing full lockdown,' the post claims. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) On key data points, each of which has limitations, Sweden is faring worse than Denmark and Norway. The Swedish approach Sweden has a population of 10 million people, nearly nine out of 10 of whom live in urban areas. As we reported in a fact-check comparing Sweden with Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, Sweden has imposed no lockdown and no quarantines, although gatherings of more than 50 people are banned. Elementary schools, bars, restaurants and businesses are still open, though with social distancing and other safety measures encouraged. What's happening in Sweden seems like something closer to life as most Americans remember it before much of the country was shut down. The idea in Sweden is to essentially pursue herd immunity - let the virus spread as slowly as possible while sheltering the elderly and the vulnerable until much of the population becomes naturally immune, or a vaccine becomes available. In contrast, Denmark and Norway closed their restaurants and ski slopes and told all students to stay home. Norway required most people returning from abroad to enter a two-week quarantine and limited groups outdoors to no more than five people. Denmark closed its borders, sent public workers home with pay and encouraged all other employees to work from home. Comparing the COVID numbers Here are some of the major metrics on how Sweden (which also borders Finland) compares with Denmark and Norway. We're including the United States for informational value. The figures are from Our World in Data. That research organization is funded by philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates and is led by Max Roser, who is director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Global Development at the University of Oxford. All data are as of April 19, the date of the Facebook post. Confirmed infection rate: Sweden rising faster Sweden has a higher confirmed infection rate than Denmark and Norway. The measure is the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases per million people. United States: 2,220.79 Sweden: 1,368.61 Norway: 1,288.27 Denmark: 1,250.3 The differences among Sweden, Norway and Denmark are not significant, Jennifer Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told PolitiFact. But the total number of confirmed cases is increasing faster in Sweden than in Norway and Denmark - even though Sweden is doing less testing per 1,000 people than Norway and Denmark. Anders Tegnell, the epidemiologist who is credited with developing Sweden's COVID-19 strategy, says infection rate is an unreliable measure of how a country is doing. 'The recorded infection rate depends hugely on the number of tests performed and what indications for testing that are used,' Tegnell, the director of the Swedish Public Health Agency, told PolitiFact for a previous fact-check. Helen Jenkins, a Boston University professor of biostatistics, also told us she wouldn't rely on that measure because of how much testing varies among countries. Death rates: Sweden higher One way to compare COVID-19 deaths is the ratio of confirmed deaths to confirmed cases. Sweden's is more than twice as high as Denmark's and more than five times higher than Norway's. Sweden: 10.93% United States: 5.29% Denmark: 4.78% Norway: 2.12% Even though this case fatality rate is commonly discussed, during an outbreak it is a poor measure of the true risk of death, Our World in Data says. That's because the rate relies on the number of confirmed cases, and many cases are not confirmed. And it relies on the total number of deaths; and with COVID-19, some people who are sick will die soon but have not yet died. Another measure is COVID-19 deaths per million people. Again, Sweden's is higher than Denmark's and Norway's. Sweden: 149.61 United States: 117.55 Denmark: 59.74 Norway: 27.3 This per-capita death rate 'is a better measure of the severity of the issue,' Kates said. Per capita case rates may, or may not, include everyone who needs to be tested, but not everyone who gets infected will get sick or die, she said. And deaths reported are less dependent on testing capacity than cases. Tegnell has said Sweden's death toll 'is not a failure for the overall strategy,' but rather 'a failure to protect our elderly who live in care homes.' A view from one Stockholm resident Overall, Jenkins cautioned against drawing conclusions on comparing the three countries, given that the outbreak is still unfolding. 'This is not over yet; in fact, it's just starting,' she told PolitiFact. 'Hard to judge the full impact of lockdown or not right at the moment.' Another expert, Paul Franks, a genetic-epidemiology professor at Lund University in Sweden, wrote on April 23 that studies indicate that 'we should soon expect infections and deaths in Stockholm,' Sweden's largest city, 'to drop substantially in the coming weeks.' Peter Callerfelt, 43, who owns a recruiting consulting business in Stockholm, said he believes it's too soon to judge Sweden's policy. He appreciates that he and his wife can still commute to their offices, where they are almost completely isolated from co-workers, and that their daughter can still go to kindergarten. Callerfelt told PolitiFact that Sweden's policy is set by the country's health experts, not elected officials, and that citizens respond to the experts' recommendations. He wonders whether people in Norway and Denmark would comply with a second shutdown if their countries reopened and then the virus reappeared, whereas Sweden has more flexibility. 'If this is not enough, you can still have the ace left and say, OK, now we're doing a total lockdown. In the other countries, they have nothing left to play,' Callerfelt said. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden has no lockdown and 'is in no worse shape than Denmark or Norway,' which are in lockdown. It goes too far to say Sweden has no lockdown, in that gatherings of more than 50 people are prohibited. The claim has an element of truth in that Sweden has roughly the same number of confirmed cases per million people as Denmark and Norway. But it's misleading to say that Sweden is doing no worse. The total number of confirmed cases is increasing at a faster rate in Sweden than in Norway and Denmark - even though Sweden is doing less testing per 1,000 people than Norway and Denmark. Moreover, Sweden has higher death rates. For a statement with some truth that ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is Mostly False. | [
"104247-proof-13-2b2162aaca76fcd6d3c829289c6e0e65.jpg"
]
|
Photo shows Rep. Lauren Boebert with Capitol rioters before she gave them a tour of the building 'one day before the insurrection. | Contradiction | U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., spent her first weeks in Congress arguing against the House impeachment vote against President Donald Trump, making false claims about the presidential election, objecting to new metal detectors in front of House chambers, and insisting that she could carry her handgun around the Capitol. But there are some false claims being spread about the freshman congresswoman, too. In the days following the Capitol raid, viral captions have been shared alongside a photo featuring Boebert that claim it shows some of the rioters and was taken the day before the attack. 'Congresswoman Lauren Boebert took this group on a guided tour of the Capitol one day before the insurrection. Three of the people participated and knew exactly where to go...' one post reads. But the image wasn't taken on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in January 2021. It dates back to December 2019 and was captured outside of the Colorado State Capitol. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The image first appeared in a Dec. 9, 2019, Colorado Times Recorder story about a rally against the state's 'red flag' law, which allows guns to be taken from people deemed a threat to themselves or others. The newspaper reported that Boebert attended the event and had just launched her campaign for Congress. 'Organizers of the 'We Will Not Comply' rally included Rally For Our Rights activist Lesley Hollywood, conservative Facebook personality Sheronna Bishop, and gun rights activist Lauren Boebert, who just launched her campaign for Colorado's Third Congressional District, where she will challenge incumbent U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton in the Republican primary,' the Times Recorder wrote. In the image, Boebert is standing with members of the 'Bikers for Trump' group, as well as 'American Patriots II%,' which is listed as an anti-government extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Some people in the photograph appear to be displaying a white supremacist symbol. | Our ruling Facebook posts claim a photo of Boebert shows her standing with Capitol rioters before she gave them a tour of the building 'one day before the insurrection.' This isn't accurate. Boebert is seen with members of an extremist group in the image, but it wasn't taken recently, or on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. It's from a December 2019 rally at Colorado's Capitol. We rate this False. | []
|
'Thousands of Seattle Democrats gather to demand mail-in voting because it's too dangerous to vote in-person. | Contradiction | Democrats across the country have advocated for more mail-in voting due to the coronavirus pandemic. But a photo shared on social media does not show demonstrators crowding at an intersection in the name of this cause. 'Thousands of Seattle Democrats gather to demand mail-in voting because it's too dangerous to vote in-person,' one post says of the aerial photo that shows people gathered on the streets below. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The photo does show thousands of demonstrators in Seattle on June 6, but they were protesting police violence against Black people - not demanding mail-in voting for the November election. West Seattle Blog reported on the demonstration, which happened in the West Seattle neighborhood, and published the photo that appears in the Facebook post. It's credited to Paul Weatherman, an aerial photographer. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
The media 'pulled down an entire shelf of goods so that they can present the news of people buying stuff in a hysteria over the coronavirus. | Contradiction | The latest weapon in the arsenal of coronavirus conspiracy theorists: an out-of-context photo from Romania. A Facebook post published March 4 purports to show an empty row of shelves in a grocery store. According to the photo, a nearby camerawoman staged the scene. 'MSM in my town, pulled down an entire shelf of goods so that they can present the news of people buying stuff in a hysteria over the coronavirus,' reads text under the image, which is a screenshot of a tweet that appears to have been deleted. (MSM stands for mainstream media.) The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It has also been shared on Instagram. But that's not what this photo shows. (Screenshot from Facebook) We traced the image to a Feb. 27 thread on a Romanian subreddit. (The store signs in the image are written in Romanian.) 'How to produce chaos,' reads the title of the thread, which we translated using Google Translate. Reddit users commented that the news organization pictured in the photo is Antena 1, a TV network in Romania. The logo on the mic in the photo is consistent with that of Observator, a show on Antena 1. A video news report that Observator uploaded to YouTube on Feb. 26 addresses mounting concerns over the spread of the coronavirus in Romania. The four4-minute piece shows people emptying shelves at grocery stores across the country, where there are four confirmed cases of the virus. 'Fear of coronavirus is emptying major stores,' reads the caption. 'Bags of flour and corn, dozens of cans and hundreds of liters of water carried from the shelves.' The trend of stockpiling groceries is well-documented and began in Wuhan, China, after the 2019 coronavirus first emerged there in December. As the virus spread, grocery stores across Europe and the United States were similarly affected, as customers rushed to stock up on essentials in the event of long home quarantines. RELATED: Stop sharing myths about preventing the coronavirus. Here are 4 real ways to protect yourself. There is no evidence that Observator or any other media organization has staged footage of empty grocery store shelves to cause coronavirus panic. That conspiracy theory has been echoed on fringe internet platforms like 4chan, where several high-profile conspiracies were created. And the Antena 1 journalist who was implicated in the original hoax has published additional footage to contextualize the image. The global outbreak of the virus officially known as COVID-19 has infected more than 93,000 people in 76 countries - including 99 confirmed cases in the United States. This is one of the many conspiracy theories and hoaxes that have gained traction online. Another popular conspiracy theory baselessly claims that the media and Democrats are overhyping the threat of the coronavirus to hurt President Donald Trump's re-election chances. This Facebook post is part and parcel of that conspiracy. It is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire! | This Facebook post is part and parcel of that conspiracy. It is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire! | [
"104309-proof-26-d0a420c60ecd168e4edaacd18e4f98df.jpg",
"104309-proof-32-Screen_Shot_2020-03-05_at_3.16.48_PM.jpg"
]
|
The media 'pulled down an entire shelf of goods so that they can present the news of people buying stuff in a hysteria over the coronavirus. | Contradiction | The latest weapon in the arsenal of coronavirus conspiracy theorists: an out-of-context photo from Romania. A Facebook post published March 4 purports to show an empty row of shelves in a grocery store. According to the photo, a nearby camerawoman staged the scene. 'MSM in my town, pulled down an entire shelf of goods so that they can present the news of people buying stuff in a hysteria over the coronavirus,' reads text under the image, which is a screenshot of a tweet that appears to have been deleted. (MSM stands for mainstream media.) The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It has also been shared on Instagram. But that's not what this photo shows. (Screenshot from Facebook) We traced the image to a Feb. 27 thread on a Romanian subreddit. (The store signs in the image are written in Romanian.) 'How to produce chaos,' reads the title of the thread, which we translated using Google Translate. Reddit users commented that the news organization pictured in the photo is Antena 1, a TV network in Romania. The logo on the mic in the photo is consistent with that of Observator, a show on Antena 1. A video news report that Observator uploaded to YouTube on Feb. 26 addresses mounting concerns over the spread of the coronavirus in Romania. The four4-minute piece shows people emptying shelves at grocery stores across the country, where there are four confirmed cases of the virus. 'Fear of coronavirus is emptying major stores,' reads the caption. 'Bags of flour and corn, dozens of cans and hundreds of liters of water carried from the shelves.' The trend of stockpiling groceries is well-documented and began in Wuhan, China, after the 2019 coronavirus first emerged there in December. As the virus spread, grocery stores across Europe and the United States were similarly affected, as customers rushed to stock up on essentials in the event of long home quarantines. RELATED: Stop sharing myths about preventing the coronavirus. Here are 4 real ways to protect yourself. There is no evidence that Observator or any other media organization has staged footage of empty grocery store shelves to cause coronavirus panic. That conspiracy theory has been echoed on fringe internet platforms like 4chan, where several high-profile conspiracies were created. And the Antena 1 journalist who was implicated in the original hoax has published additional footage to contextualize the image. The global outbreak of the virus officially known as COVID-19 has infected more than 93,000 people in 76 countries - including 99 confirmed cases in the United States. This is one of the many conspiracy theories and hoaxes that have gained traction online. Another popular conspiracy theory baselessly claims that the media and Democrats are overhyping the threat of the coronavirus to hurt President Donald Trump's re-election chances. This Facebook post is part and parcel of that conspiracy. It is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire! | This Facebook post is part and parcel of that conspiracy. It is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire! | [
"104309-proof-26-d0a420c60ecd168e4edaacd18e4f98df.jpg",
"104309-proof-32-Screen_Shot_2020-03-05_at_3.16.48_PM.jpg"
]
|
The media 'pulled down an entire shelf of goods so that they can present the news of people buying stuff in a hysteria over the coronavirus. | Contradiction | The latest weapon in the arsenal of coronavirus conspiracy theorists: an out-of-context photo from Romania. A Facebook post published March 4 purports to show an empty row of shelves in a grocery store. According to the photo, a nearby camerawoman staged the scene. 'MSM in my town, pulled down an entire shelf of goods so that they can present the news of people buying stuff in a hysteria over the coronavirus,' reads text under the image, which is a screenshot of a tweet that appears to have been deleted. (MSM stands for mainstream media.) The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It has also been shared on Instagram. But that's not what this photo shows. (Screenshot from Facebook) We traced the image to a Feb. 27 thread on a Romanian subreddit. (The store signs in the image are written in Romanian.) 'How to produce chaos,' reads the title of the thread, which we translated using Google Translate. Reddit users commented that the news organization pictured in the photo is Antena 1, a TV network in Romania. The logo on the mic in the photo is consistent with that of Observator, a show on Antena 1. A video news report that Observator uploaded to YouTube on Feb. 26 addresses mounting concerns over the spread of the coronavirus in Romania. The four4-minute piece shows people emptying shelves at grocery stores across the country, where there are four confirmed cases of the virus. 'Fear of coronavirus is emptying major stores,' reads the caption. 'Bags of flour and corn, dozens of cans and hundreds of liters of water carried from the shelves.' The trend of stockpiling groceries is well-documented and began in Wuhan, China, after the 2019 coronavirus first emerged there in December. As the virus spread, grocery stores across Europe and the United States were similarly affected, as customers rushed to stock up on essentials in the event of long home quarantines. RELATED: Stop sharing myths about preventing the coronavirus. Here are 4 real ways to protect yourself. There is no evidence that Observator or any other media organization has staged footage of empty grocery store shelves to cause coronavirus panic. That conspiracy theory has been echoed on fringe internet platforms like 4chan, where several high-profile conspiracies were created. And the Antena 1 journalist who was implicated in the original hoax has published additional footage to contextualize the image. The global outbreak of the virus officially known as COVID-19 has infected more than 93,000 people in 76 countries - including 99 confirmed cases in the United States. This is one of the many conspiracy theories and hoaxes that have gained traction online. Another popular conspiracy theory baselessly claims that the media and Democrats are overhyping the threat of the coronavirus to hurt President Donald Trump's re-election chances. This Facebook post is part and parcel of that conspiracy. It is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire! | This Facebook post is part and parcel of that conspiracy. It is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire! | [
"104309-proof-26-d0a420c60ecd168e4edaacd18e4f98df.jpg",
"104309-proof-32-Screen_Shot_2020-03-05_at_3.16.48_PM.jpg"
]
|
'Anyone remember Kamala telling Joe during the debate: 'You will do whatever the Chinese tell you! They gave your son over a billion dollars. | Contradiction | More than a year before Joe Biden selected Kamala Harris to be his running mate, the future president and vice president sparred on the debate stage in Miami. In a tense exchange, Harris attacked Biden over his record on busing to desegregate schools in the 1970s. 'There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day,' she said. 'And that little girl was me.' Now, months into Biden's term as president with Harris by his side, social media users have recast the exchange as a confrontation over Biden's relationship with China. 'Anyone remember Kamala telling Joe during the debate: 'You will do whatever the Chinese tell you! They gave your son over a billion dollars,'' says an April 24 Facebook post. The post shows images of both Harris and Biden from the June 27, 2019, primary debate in Miami. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A screenshot of an April 24 Facebook post falsely claiming Kamala Harris attacked Joe Biden on China during a debate. The image in the Facebook post shows the moment during the Miami debate when Harris went after Biden for his position on busing. But Harris never challenged him about China or said what the post alleges - not during the Miami debate or any other debate, the transcripts show. Harris called off her campaign for president on Dec. 3, 2019. Before that, she participated in five Democratic primary debates, including the first in Miami. But transcripts of each debate from the Washington Post do not show Harris attacking Biden about China. Harris did mention China during a September debate in Houston, but the comment did not pertain to Biden or Biden's son, Hunter Biden. 'It's a complicated relationship,' Harris said. 'We have to hold China accountable. They steal our products, including our intellectual property. They dump substandard products into our economy. They need to be held accountable. We also need to partner with China on climate and the crisis that presents. We need to partner with China on the issue of North Korea.' Fact-checkers at Snopes, the Associated Press, Lead Stories and USA Today also found no evidence that Harris attacked Biden as the Facebook post claimed. Hunter Biden became a target of attacks from former President Donald Trump and his allies as Trump and Biden squared off on the campaign trail. Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into the Bidens led to the first of his two impeachments. In December, Hunter Biden confirmed his finances were the subject of a Justice Department probe. He has been involved in business dealings involving Chinese companies. But claims alleging wrongdoing by the elder Biden have generally remained unsubstantiated. | Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'Anyone Remember Kamala telling Joe during the Debate: 'You will do whatever the Chinese tell you! They gave your son over a billion dollars.'' Harris never said that during the Miami primary debate highlighted by the Facebook post, or in any of the other four primary debates she participated in, transcripts show. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire! RELATED: Harris did not call Biden a racist during her busing attack | [
"104319-proof-03-177883662_4102290879829627_3221354412826014546_n.jpg",
"104319-proof-34-011099a7fe07bcfb1be783279a28922e.jpg"
]
|
'Anyone remember Kamala telling Joe during the debate: 'You will do whatever the Chinese tell you! They gave your son over a billion dollars. | Contradiction | More than a year before Joe Biden selected Kamala Harris to be his running mate, the future president and vice president sparred on the debate stage in Miami. In a tense exchange, Harris attacked Biden over his record on busing to desegregate schools in the 1970s. 'There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day,' she said. 'And that little girl was me.' Now, months into Biden's term as president with Harris by his side, social media users have recast the exchange as a confrontation over Biden's relationship with China. 'Anyone remember Kamala telling Joe during the debate: 'You will do whatever the Chinese tell you! They gave your son over a billion dollars,'' says an April 24 Facebook post. The post shows images of both Harris and Biden from the June 27, 2019, primary debate in Miami. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A screenshot of an April 24 Facebook post falsely claiming Kamala Harris attacked Joe Biden on China during a debate. The image in the Facebook post shows the moment during the Miami debate when Harris went after Biden for his position on busing. But Harris never challenged him about China or said what the post alleges - not during the Miami debate or any other debate, the transcripts show. Harris called off her campaign for president on Dec. 3, 2019. Before that, she participated in five Democratic primary debates, including the first in Miami. But transcripts of each debate from the Washington Post do not show Harris attacking Biden about China. Harris did mention China during a September debate in Houston, but the comment did not pertain to Biden or Biden's son, Hunter Biden. 'It's a complicated relationship,' Harris said. 'We have to hold China accountable. They steal our products, including our intellectual property. They dump substandard products into our economy. They need to be held accountable. We also need to partner with China on climate and the crisis that presents. We need to partner with China on the issue of North Korea.' Fact-checkers at Snopes, the Associated Press, Lead Stories and USA Today also found no evidence that Harris attacked Biden as the Facebook post claimed. Hunter Biden became a target of attacks from former President Donald Trump and his allies as Trump and Biden squared off on the campaign trail. Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into the Bidens led to the first of his two impeachments. In December, Hunter Biden confirmed his finances were the subject of a Justice Department probe. He has been involved in business dealings involving Chinese companies. But claims alleging wrongdoing by the elder Biden have generally remained unsubstantiated. | Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'Anyone Remember Kamala telling Joe during the Debate: 'You will do whatever the Chinese tell you! They gave your son over a billion dollars.'' Harris never said that during the Miami primary debate highlighted by the Facebook post, or in any of the other four primary debates she participated in, transcripts show. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire! RELATED: Harris did not call Biden a racist during her busing attack | [
"104319-proof-03-177883662_4102290879829627_3221354412826014546_n.jpg",
"104319-proof-34-011099a7fe07bcfb1be783279a28922e.jpg"
]
|
'Bill Gates says you don't have a choice to be vaccinated or not. | Contradiction | According to the internet, Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates thinks you don't have a choice about being vaccinated. A YouTube video even shows him saying so in his very own words. Here's why you shouldn't believe this claim: The video, titled 'Bill Gates says you don't have a choice to be vaccinated or not,' takes Gates' comments during an interview with the Financial Times out of context by eliminating the question he was answering and the first part of his response. 'You don't have a choice,' Gates says in the clip, which has been viewed almost 100,000 times. 'People act like you have a choice. People don't feel like going to the stadium when they might get infected. You know, it's not the government who's saying OK, just ignore this disease, and people are deeply affected by seeing these deaths, by knowing they could be part of the transmission chain, and old people, their parents, their grandparents could be affected by this. And so you don't get to say, ignore what's going on here. There will be the ability, particularly in rich countries, to open up if things are done well over the next few months. But for the world at large, normalcy only returns when we've largely vaccinated the entire global population.' The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because the video ignores the fact that Gates was responding to a question about how he would weigh the economic costs of lockdown with the public health risks of reopening businesses during the early months of the pandemic. Here's a transcript of the relevant passage from the Financial Times interview, complete with the question that Gates was answering when he made his 'you won't have a choice' comment. Interviewer: 'And what about that trade-off? You just mentioned, obviously, the economic pain. What do you think the right balance is between the trade-off of protecting people's lives and the economic hit? Do you see a situation where the global economy could be virtually at a standstill for a year or even more?' Gates: 'Well, it won't go to zero, but it will shrink. Global GDP is going to take probably the biggest hit ever. Maybe the Depression was worse or 1873, I don't know. But in my lifetime this will be the greatest economic hit. But you don't have a choice. People act like you have a choice. People don't feel like going to the stadium when they might get infected. You know, it's not the government who's saying OK, just ignore this disease, and people are deeply affected by seeing these deaths, by knowing they could be part of the transmission chain, and old people, their parents, their grandparents could be affected by this. And so you don't get to say, ignore what's going on here. There will be the ability, particularly in rich countries, to open up if things are done well over the next few months. But for the world at large, normalcy only returns when we've largely vaccinated the entire global population. And so although there's a lot of work on testing, a lot of work on drugs that we're involved with, trying to achieve that ambitious goal, which has never been done for the vaccine, that rises to the top of the list.' In context, Gates is saying that governments won't be able to avoid taking an economic hit from the pandemic, because he believes that people won't want to frequent businesses when there's a chance that they'll become 'part of the transmission chain.' Gates does say that he believes that normalcy will only return after the entire global population is vaccinated from the coronavirus. But at no point does he say that people 'won't have a choice' about whether or not they'll be vaccinated. We reached out to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, asking whether Gates believes that coronavirus vaccinations should be mandatory. In reply, spokespeople from the foundation wrote that 'national governments will make the ultimate decision about how vaccines will be distributed in their own borders.' We should note that Gates has become a frequent target for disinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. Conspiracy theorists have falsely claimed he is planning to use coronavirus vaccines to implant tracking devices in people, that he and Dr. Anthony Fauci are colluding to ruin the economy, and that he stands to reap enormous profits from the virus. | Our ruling A YouTube video appears to show Bill Gates saying that people 'don't have a choice' about whether they'll receive a COVID-19 vaccination. The video takes Gates out of context. He was actually saying that governments won't be able to escape the economic impacts of the pandemic, even if they decide to reopen businesses before a vaccine is available. We rate this video False. | []
|
'They have 180 million people, families under what he wants to do, which will basically be socialized medicine - you won't even have a choice - they want to terminate 180 million plans. | Contradiction | During the final presidential debate, President Donald Trump claimed that 180 million people would lose their private health insurance to socialized medicine if Democratic presidential nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, is elected president. 'They have 180 million people, families under what he wants to do, which will basically be socialized medicine - you won't even have a choice - they want to terminate 180 million plans,' said Trump. Trump has repeated this claim throughout the week, and we thought the linkage of Biden's proposed health care plan with socialism was something we needed to check out. Especially since Biden opposed Medicare for All, the proposal by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that would have created a single-payer health system run completely by the federal government, and has long been attacked by Republicans as 'socialist.' The Trump campaign did not respond to our request asking where the evidence for this claim. Experts called it a distortion of Biden's plan. Where the number comes from Experts agreed the number of individuals who have private health insurance either through an employer-sponsored plan or purchased on the Affordable Care Act's health insurance marketplace is around 180 million people. The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan health policy organization, estimated in 2018 about 157 million Americans had health insurance through their employer, while almost 20 million had insurance they purchased for themselves.Together, that adds up to about 177 million with private health insurance. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF). What does Biden support? Biden supports expanding the ACA through several measures, including a public option. Under his plan, this public option would be a health insurance plan run by the federal government that would be offered alongside other private health insurance plans on the insurance marketplace. 'The marketplace is made up of multiple insurers in areas,' said Linda Blumberg, a health policy fellow at the Urban Institute. 'Sometimes there are five or more (plans), sometimes there is only one. Biden is talking about adding a public option in the marketplace. You could pick between these private insurers or you could pick the public option.' Getting rid of the so-called 'employer firewall' is also part of Biden's proposal. This firewall was implemented during the roll out of the ACA. It was designed to maintain balance in the insurance risk pools by preventing too many healthy people who have work-based coverage from opting instead to move to a marketplace plan. And it all came down to who qualified for the subsidies that made these plans more affordable. Currently, those who are offered a health insurance plan through their employer that meets certain minimum federal standards aren't eligible to receive these subsidies, which come in the form of tax credits. But that leaves many low income workers with health care plans that aren't as affordable or comprehensive as marketplace plans. Biden's plan would eliminate that 'firewall,' meaning that anyone could choose to either get health insurance through their employer or through the marketplace. That's where many Republicans argue that we could start to see leakage from private health insurance plans to the public option. 'The problem is healthy people leaving employer plans,' said Joseph Antos, a scholar in health care at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute. That could mean the entire work-place plan's premiums could go up. 'You could easily imagine a plan where it spirals, the premiums go up, and then even more people start leaving the plans to go to the public option.' Blumberg, though, said that because the marketplace would still include private health insurance plans alongside the public option, it doesn't mean everyone who chooses to leave their employer plan would go straight to the public option. She has done estimates based on a plan similar to the one Biden is proposing. She estimates that only about 10% to 12% of Americans would choose to leave their employer-sponsored plans, which translates to about 15 million to 18 million Americans. KFF also did an estimate and found that 12.3 million people with employer coverage could save money by buying on the exchange under the Biden plan. But, 'it's not clear all of those people would choose to leave their employer coverage, though, as there are other reasons besides costs that people might want to have job-based insurance,' Cynthia Cox, vice president and director of the program on the ACA at KFF, wrote in an email. Either way, none of the estimates are anywhere close to the 180 million that Trump claimed. Is this type of public option socialism? Overall, experts said no, what Biden supports isn't socialized medicine. 'Socialized medicine means that the government runs hospitals and employs doctors, and that is not part of Biden's plan,' Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, wrote in an email. 'Under Biden's plans, doctors and hospitals would remain in the private sector just like they are today.' However, Antos said in his view that the definition of socialism can really vary when it comes to health care. 'I would argue in one sense, we would already have socialized medicine. We have massive federal subsidies for everybody, so in that sense, we're already there,' said Antos. 'But, if socialized medicine means the government is going to dictate how doctors practice or how health care is delivered, we are obviously not in that situation. I don't think the Biden plan would lead you that way.' And in the end, Antos said invoking socialism is a scare tactic that politicians have been doing for years. 'It's just a political slur,' said Antos. 'It's meant to inflame the emotions of those who will vote for Trump and meant to annoy the people who will vote for Biden.' | Our ruling Trump said 180 million people would lose their private health insurance plans to socialized medicine under Biden. While about 180 million people do have private health insurance, there is no evidence that all of them would lose their private plans if Biden were elected president. Biden supports implementing a public option on the health insurance marketplace. It would exist alongside private health insurance plans, and Americans would have the option to buy either the private plan or the public plan. While estimates show that there are a number of Americans that would likely leave their employer-sponsored coverage for the public plan, they would be doing that by choice and the estimates are nowhere near Trump's 180 million figure. Experts also agree that the public option is not socialized medicine, and it's ridiculous to conflate Biden's plan with Medicare for All. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"104328-proof-04-13bf98bc6eb2ec76c541bc98c21f3b68.jpg"
]
|
'They have 180 million people, families under what he wants to do, which will basically be socialized medicine - you won't even have a choice - they want to terminate 180 million plans. | Contradiction | During the final presidential debate, President Donald Trump claimed that 180 million people would lose their private health insurance to socialized medicine if Democratic presidential nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, is elected president. 'They have 180 million people, families under what he wants to do, which will basically be socialized medicine - you won't even have a choice - they want to terminate 180 million plans,' said Trump. Trump has repeated this claim throughout the week, and we thought the linkage of Biden's proposed health care plan with socialism was something we needed to check out. Especially since Biden opposed Medicare for All, the proposal by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that would have created a single-payer health system run completely by the federal government, and has long been attacked by Republicans as 'socialist.' The Trump campaign did not respond to our request asking where the evidence for this claim. Experts called it a distortion of Biden's plan. Where the number comes from Experts agreed the number of individuals who have private health insurance either through an employer-sponsored plan or purchased on the Affordable Care Act's health insurance marketplace is around 180 million people. The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan health policy organization, estimated in 2018 about 157 million Americans had health insurance through their employer, while almost 20 million had insurance they purchased for themselves.Together, that adds up to about 177 million with private health insurance. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF). What does Biden support? Biden supports expanding the ACA through several measures, including a public option. Under his plan, this public option would be a health insurance plan run by the federal government that would be offered alongside other private health insurance plans on the insurance marketplace. 'The marketplace is made up of multiple insurers in areas,' said Linda Blumberg, a health policy fellow at the Urban Institute. 'Sometimes there are five or more (plans), sometimes there is only one. Biden is talking about adding a public option in the marketplace. You could pick between these private insurers or you could pick the public option.' Getting rid of the so-called 'employer firewall' is also part of Biden's proposal. This firewall was implemented during the roll out of the ACA. It was designed to maintain balance in the insurance risk pools by preventing too many healthy people who have work-based coverage from opting instead to move to a marketplace plan. And it all came down to who qualified for the subsidies that made these plans more affordable. Currently, those who are offered a health insurance plan through their employer that meets certain minimum federal standards aren't eligible to receive these subsidies, which come in the form of tax credits. But that leaves many low income workers with health care plans that aren't as affordable or comprehensive as marketplace plans. Biden's plan would eliminate that 'firewall,' meaning that anyone could choose to either get health insurance through their employer or through the marketplace. That's where many Republicans argue that we could start to see leakage from private health insurance plans to the public option. 'The problem is healthy people leaving employer plans,' said Joseph Antos, a scholar in health care at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute. That could mean the entire work-place plan's premiums could go up. 'You could easily imagine a plan where it spirals, the premiums go up, and then even more people start leaving the plans to go to the public option.' Blumberg, though, said that because the marketplace would still include private health insurance plans alongside the public option, it doesn't mean everyone who chooses to leave their employer plan would go straight to the public option. She has done estimates based on a plan similar to the one Biden is proposing. She estimates that only about 10% to 12% of Americans would choose to leave their employer-sponsored plans, which translates to about 15 million to 18 million Americans. KFF also did an estimate and found that 12.3 million people with employer coverage could save money by buying on the exchange under the Biden plan. But, 'it's not clear all of those people would choose to leave their employer coverage, though, as there are other reasons besides costs that people might want to have job-based insurance,' Cynthia Cox, vice president and director of the program on the ACA at KFF, wrote in an email. Either way, none of the estimates are anywhere close to the 180 million that Trump claimed. Is this type of public option socialism? Overall, experts said no, what Biden supports isn't socialized medicine. 'Socialized medicine means that the government runs hospitals and employs doctors, and that is not part of Biden's plan,' Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, wrote in an email. 'Under Biden's plans, doctors and hospitals would remain in the private sector just like they are today.' However, Antos said in his view that the definition of socialism can really vary when it comes to health care. 'I would argue in one sense, we would already have socialized medicine. We have massive federal subsidies for everybody, so in that sense, we're already there,' said Antos. 'But, if socialized medicine means the government is going to dictate how doctors practice or how health care is delivered, we are obviously not in that situation. I don't think the Biden plan would lead you that way.' And in the end, Antos said invoking socialism is a scare tactic that politicians have been doing for years. 'It's just a political slur,' said Antos. 'It's meant to inflame the emotions of those who will vote for Trump and meant to annoy the people who will vote for Biden.' | Our ruling Trump said 180 million people would lose their private health insurance plans to socialized medicine under Biden. While about 180 million people do have private health insurance, there is no evidence that all of them would lose their private plans if Biden were elected president. Biden supports implementing a public option on the health insurance marketplace. It would exist alongside private health insurance plans, and Americans would have the option to buy either the private plan or the public plan. While estimates show that there are a number of Americans that would likely leave their employer-sponsored coverage for the public plan, they would be doing that by choice and the estimates are nowhere near Trump's 180 million figure. Experts also agree that the public option is not socialized medicine, and it's ridiculous to conflate Biden's plan with Medicare for All. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"104328-proof-04-13bf98bc6eb2ec76c541bc98c21f3b68.jpg"
]
|
'They have 180 million people, families under what he wants to do, which will basically be socialized medicine - you won't even have a choice - they want to terminate 180 million plans. | Contradiction | During the final presidential debate, President Donald Trump claimed that 180 million people would lose their private health insurance to socialized medicine if Democratic presidential nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, is elected president. 'They have 180 million people, families under what he wants to do, which will basically be socialized medicine - you won't even have a choice - they want to terminate 180 million plans,' said Trump. Trump has repeated this claim throughout the week, and we thought the linkage of Biden's proposed health care plan with socialism was something we needed to check out. Especially since Biden opposed Medicare for All, the proposal by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that would have created a single-payer health system run completely by the federal government, and has long been attacked by Republicans as 'socialist.' The Trump campaign did not respond to our request asking where the evidence for this claim. Experts called it a distortion of Biden's plan. Where the number comes from Experts agreed the number of individuals who have private health insurance either through an employer-sponsored plan or purchased on the Affordable Care Act's health insurance marketplace is around 180 million people. The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan health policy organization, estimated in 2018 about 157 million Americans had health insurance through their employer, while almost 20 million had insurance they purchased for themselves.Together, that adds up to about 177 million with private health insurance. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF). What does Biden support? Biden supports expanding the ACA through several measures, including a public option. Under his plan, this public option would be a health insurance plan run by the federal government that would be offered alongside other private health insurance plans on the insurance marketplace. 'The marketplace is made up of multiple insurers in areas,' said Linda Blumberg, a health policy fellow at the Urban Institute. 'Sometimes there are five or more (plans), sometimes there is only one. Biden is talking about adding a public option in the marketplace. You could pick between these private insurers or you could pick the public option.' Getting rid of the so-called 'employer firewall' is also part of Biden's proposal. This firewall was implemented during the roll out of the ACA. It was designed to maintain balance in the insurance risk pools by preventing too many healthy people who have work-based coverage from opting instead to move to a marketplace plan. And it all came down to who qualified for the subsidies that made these plans more affordable. Currently, those who are offered a health insurance plan through their employer that meets certain minimum federal standards aren't eligible to receive these subsidies, which come in the form of tax credits. But that leaves many low income workers with health care plans that aren't as affordable or comprehensive as marketplace plans. Biden's plan would eliminate that 'firewall,' meaning that anyone could choose to either get health insurance through their employer or through the marketplace. That's where many Republicans argue that we could start to see leakage from private health insurance plans to the public option. 'The problem is healthy people leaving employer plans,' said Joseph Antos, a scholar in health care at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute. That could mean the entire work-place plan's premiums could go up. 'You could easily imagine a plan where it spirals, the premiums go up, and then even more people start leaving the plans to go to the public option.' Blumberg, though, said that because the marketplace would still include private health insurance plans alongside the public option, it doesn't mean everyone who chooses to leave their employer plan would go straight to the public option. She has done estimates based on a plan similar to the one Biden is proposing. She estimates that only about 10% to 12% of Americans would choose to leave their employer-sponsored plans, which translates to about 15 million to 18 million Americans. KFF also did an estimate and found that 12.3 million people with employer coverage could save money by buying on the exchange under the Biden plan. But, 'it's not clear all of those people would choose to leave their employer coverage, though, as there are other reasons besides costs that people might want to have job-based insurance,' Cynthia Cox, vice president and director of the program on the ACA at KFF, wrote in an email. Either way, none of the estimates are anywhere close to the 180 million that Trump claimed. Is this type of public option socialism? Overall, experts said no, what Biden supports isn't socialized medicine. 'Socialized medicine means that the government runs hospitals and employs doctors, and that is not part of Biden's plan,' Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, wrote in an email. 'Under Biden's plans, doctors and hospitals would remain in the private sector just like they are today.' However, Antos said in his view that the definition of socialism can really vary when it comes to health care. 'I would argue in one sense, we would already have socialized medicine. We have massive federal subsidies for everybody, so in that sense, we're already there,' said Antos. 'But, if socialized medicine means the government is going to dictate how doctors practice or how health care is delivered, we are obviously not in that situation. I don't think the Biden plan would lead you that way.' And in the end, Antos said invoking socialism is a scare tactic that politicians have been doing for years. 'It's just a political slur,' said Antos. 'It's meant to inflame the emotions of those who will vote for Trump and meant to annoy the people who will vote for Biden.' | Our ruling Trump said 180 million people would lose their private health insurance plans to socialized medicine under Biden. While about 180 million people do have private health insurance, there is no evidence that all of them would lose their private plans if Biden were elected president. Biden supports implementing a public option on the health insurance marketplace. It would exist alongside private health insurance plans, and Americans would have the option to buy either the private plan or the public plan. While estimates show that there are a number of Americans that would likely leave their employer-sponsored coverage for the public plan, they would be doing that by choice and the estimates are nowhere near Trump's 180 million figure. Experts also agree that the public option is not socialized medicine, and it's ridiculous to conflate Biden's plan with Medicare for All. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"104328-proof-04-13bf98bc6eb2ec76c541bc98c21f3b68.jpg"
]
|
Says President Trump posted a combative tweet to EA Sports about Colin Kaepernick. | Contradiction | A screenshot of what appears to be a combative tweet by President Donald Trump about former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick being added to EA Sports' Madden 21 NFL video game is going around Facebook. Except, it isn't real. The fabricated tweet says, 'Hey @EASPORTS, I hear Kaepernick is available as a free agent in Madden 21. I'm also a free agent, so why not add me? I'm equally worthless as a NFL player as Kaepernick.' The screenshot also adds in a reply from Kaepernick that reads: 'Why not elect me President? I'm as equally worthless as a President as you.' | The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on November 7, 2021 in a Facebook post A banner for COVID-19 vaccines says, 'Don't forget to donate your childrens organs.' By Ciara O'Rourke • November 10, 2021 Kaepernick, who led the San Francisco 49ers to the Super Bowl after the 2012 season, will be included as a free agent in Madden 21, EA Sports announced, marking his first appearance in the video game since 2016, when he started sitting or kneeling during the pregame national anthem to protest systemic oppression against Black people. But this Trump-Kaepernick interaction never took place. Both of their Twitter profiles show that neither posted the tweets on Sept. 8, and the post isn't among archives of Trump's deleted tweets. The post was created by @SavageSportsMMZ, a satirical sports social media account whose watermark can be seen in the background of the post. The fake tweet was then reposted on a Facebook page called NFL memes and has been shared thousands of times since. The page says it posts parody NFL-related memes, but many users didn't seem to know that and criticized Trump and Kaepernick in the post's comments. We rate this Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says President Trump has ordered the military to take over 'major corrupt cities' to stay in office and that U.S. citizens will receive emergency alerts on their devices. | Contradiction | The warnings across social media are plentiful. Alarmist claims advise people to stock up on food, water, medicine and weapons. In the days following the Jan. 6 riots on the U.S. Capitol, online message boards and social media platforms are filled with assertions that a nationwide military takeover is coming. Most versions of the rumor say the plan is being implemented by President Donald Trump, the final step in an elaborate scheme to release damning information about his enemies that will land them in jail and allow him to remain in office for another four years. But these lengthy and detailed narratives simply are not rooted in reality. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Most variations of the rumor, like this Facebook post, claim without evidence that 'military takedowns' and arrests will begin soon and continue up to Jan. 20, Inauguration Day: 'Everyone will be getting emergency alerts on their phones, tv's, radios & internet. It will override all other broadcasts and could last for several hours at a time.' 'DO NOT travel to any large cities (especially Philadelphia) for the rest of the month. Military operations will be taking place in many of the major corrupt cities,' the post continues. '...The implementation of the Insurrection Act began after the raid on the Capitol and was marked by Trump's broadcast to the people to disband and return home. This broadcast wound up being blocked, for the most part, by the media. Nevertheless, his address fulfilled the requirements to initiate the Act.' It went on to claim that the Federal Communications Commission told media organizations they can't 'block the flow of intel' and concluded that Trump has no plans to concede and that he will remain in office for another four years. But Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, and the military is not being sent to take over 'major corrupt cities,' by him or anyone else. There are no planned nationwide emergency alerts, and Trump signaled he will support a smooth transition of power, adding that he would not be attending President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration. Any ramp up in military responses in the coming days is directly related to securing the inauguration, military officials told PolitiFact. 'From the Department of Defense's perspective, we are not taking any stance or position, or moving people anywhere to address any of those concerns,' said DOD spokesperson Christopher Sherwood. 'Other than supporting the National Guard for the inauguration on Jan. 20, the DOD is not taking further action as far as I am aware.' The Defense Department encompasses the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force. There is also no evidence that U.S. citizens will soon receive emergency alerts on their devices. The notion that the Federal Communications Commission told media organizations they can't 'block the flow' of the alleged intel is a severe misreading of a routine advisory that was published on Jan. 7, an FCC spokesperson said. 'Our Enforcement Bureau periodically issues advisories to promote compliance with FCC rules and, as detailed in the first paragraph, this advisory was informed by the results of the 2019 nationwide Emergency Alert System test,' spokesperson Will Wiquist wrote in an email, characterizing this particular advisory as 'very routine.' Some of the speculation about the advisory may have come from a portion of the document that states that presidential messages must be transmitted in national emergencies. But this does not mean that the FCC was warning broadcast and other communications providers against blocking an incoming Trump message. The Emergency Alert System is a national public warning system that the FCC, FEMA and the National Weather Service are charged with maintaining. It is commonly used by state and local authorities to deliver important emergency information, such as weather and AMBER alerts. It also enables the president to communicate via live audio transmission to the public during a national emergency. The conspiracy theory was initially pushed by QAnon accounts, which are banned on Facebook and Twitter but have found ways to persist. The original posts were turned into forwarded text messages before morphing back into more widespread social media posts. The overarching theme relies on the belief that Trump's campaign will culminate in a sort of judgment day when he will unmask and punish his enemies. Q, the anonymous internet persona behind QAnon, has predicted that this would happen on several different days, none of which panned out. | Our ruling Viral social media posts say Trump has ordered the military to take over 'corrupt major cities' in order to stay in office and that U.S. citizens will receive emergency alerts on their devices. The rumor was created by known conspiracy theorists and has no basis in truth. Military and federal communications officials both rejected the claims and Trump signaled he would support a peaceful transition to a 'new' administration. We rate it Pants on Fire! RELATED: Fact-checking claims about the Insurrection Act, martial law after Capitol riot | []
|
Says President Trump has ordered the military to take over 'major corrupt cities' to stay in office and that U.S. citizens will receive emergency alerts on their devices. | Contradiction | The warnings across social media are plentiful. Alarmist claims advise people to stock up on food, water, medicine and weapons. In the days following the Jan. 6 riots on the U.S. Capitol, online message boards and social media platforms are filled with assertions that a nationwide military takeover is coming. Most versions of the rumor say the plan is being implemented by President Donald Trump, the final step in an elaborate scheme to release damning information about his enemies that will land them in jail and allow him to remain in office for another four years. But these lengthy and detailed narratives simply are not rooted in reality. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Most variations of the rumor, like this Facebook post, claim without evidence that 'military takedowns' and arrests will begin soon and continue up to Jan. 20, Inauguration Day: 'Everyone will be getting emergency alerts on their phones, tv's, radios & internet. It will override all other broadcasts and could last for several hours at a time.' 'DO NOT travel to any large cities (especially Philadelphia) for the rest of the month. Military operations will be taking place in many of the major corrupt cities,' the post continues. '...The implementation of the Insurrection Act began after the raid on the Capitol and was marked by Trump's broadcast to the people to disband and return home. This broadcast wound up being blocked, for the most part, by the media. Nevertheless, his address fulfilled the requirements to initiate the Act.' It went on to claim that the Federal Communications Commission told media organizations they can't 'block the flow of intel' and concluded that Trump has no plans to concede and that he will remain in office for another four years. But Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, and the military is not being sent to take over 'major corrupt cities,' by him or anyone else. There are no planned nationwide emergency alerts, and Trump signaled he will support a smooth transition of power, adding that he would not be attending President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration. Any ramp up in military responses in the coming days is directly related to securing the inauguration, military officials told PolitiFact. 'From the Department of Defense's perspective, we are not taking any stance or position, or moving people anywhere to address any of those concerns,' said DOD spokesperson Christopher Sherwood. 'Other than supporting the National Guard for the inauguration on Jan. 20, the DOD is not taking further action as far as I am aware.' The Defense Department encompasses the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force. There is also no evidence that U.S. citizens will soon receive emergency alerts on their devices. The notion that the Federal Communications Commission told media organizations they can't 'block the flow' of the alleged intel is a severe misreading of a routine advisory that was published on Jan. 7, an FCC spokesperson said. 'Our Enforcement Bureau periodically issues advisories to promote compliance with FCC rules and, as detailed in the first paragraph, this advisory was informed by the results of the 2019 nationwide Emergency Alert System test,' spokesperson Will Wiquist wrote in an email, characterizing this particular advisory as 'very routine.' Some of the speculation about the advisory may have come from a portion of the document that states that presidential messages must be transmitted in national emergencies. But this does not mean that the FCC was warning broadcast and other communications providers against blocking an incoming Trump message. The Emergency Alert System is a national public warning system that the FCC, FEMA and the National Weather Service are charged with maintaining. It is commonly used by state and local authorities to deliver important emergency information, such as weather and AMBER alerts. It also enables the president to communicate via live audio transmission to the public during a national emergency. The conspiracy theory was initially pushed by QAnon accounts, which are banned on Facebook and Twitter but have found ways to persist. The original posts were turned into forwarded text messages before morphing back into more widespread social media posts. The overarching theme relies on the belief that Trump's campaign will culminate in a sort of judgment day when he will unmask and punish his enemies. Q, the anonymous internet persona behind QAnon, has predicted that this would happen on several different days, none of which panned out. | Our ruling Viral social media posts say Trump has ordered the military to take over 'corrupt major cities' in order to stay in office and that U.S. citizens will receive emergency alerts on their devices. The rumor was created by known conspiracy theorists and has no basis in truth. Military and federal communications officials both rejected the claims and Trump signaled he would support a peaceful transition to a 'new' administration. We rate it Pants on Fire! RELATED: Fact-checking claims about the Insurrection Act, martial law after Capitol riot | []
|
Suggests the alleged Kenosha shooter's father is a deputy in the Kenosha sheriff's department. | Contradiction | A Facebook post suggests that the father of the young man arrested for killing two protesters and wounding a third in Kenosha, Wisc., is himself a law enforcement officer. 'Wondering about Kyle Rittenhouse's father?' the post says. 'Call the Kenosha Sheriff's department and ask for Deputy Rittenhouse.' This is made up. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The county's employee database has no Rittenhouse. The sheriff's department lists 10 staffers. The Rittenhouse name doesn't appear. We called the department and they don't know of any employee by that name. We checked with the City of Kenosha and the human resources department told us no Rittenhouse has worked for the city in any capacity. Kyle Rittenhouse has been strongly drawn to police work. He supported the Blue Lives Matter movement on social media. He participated in a youth training program for aspiring law enforcement officers. Aside from the post having zero basis in reality, Rittenhouse lives with his single mother, a nurse's assistant, in Antioch, Ill,, not Wisconsin. Court records from 2014 show that Kyle Rittenhouse's, Michael Rittenhouse, was living in Zion, Ill., when he was ordered to pay $85 a week in child support. At the time, he worked for QPS Employment, a firm that provides temporary office workers and other staffing services. We rate the post Pants on Fire. | We rate the post Pants on Fire. | []
|
GOP-backed 'racist disenfrachisement' led to only five polling places being open in Milwaukee for April 7 election. | Contradiction | The political mudslinging surrounding who is responsible for Wisconsin's chaotic spring election is not quite over. In an Aug. 10, 2020, op-ed in The Progressive, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes a Democrat, blamed the Republican-led state Legislature for exacerbating racial inequalities in the state and described efforts to disenfranchise Black voters - 'from gerrymandering our districts to making the simple task of voting unnecessarily arduous.' He then said: 'We have one of the most restrictive voter ID laws in the country, and we saw a new kind of racist disenfranchisement play out during our catastrophic April 7 election, when there were only five polling places in Milwaukee, instead of the usual 180.' Was GOP-backed 'racist disenfranchisement' behind the decision to have only five polling places open in Milwaukee during the spring election? Let's take a look. The background Barnes isn't the first person to point fingers in the wake of the tumultuous spring election. The Republican Party of Wisconsin in early July accused Democrats of closing down voting locations in some of Wisconsin's largest cities - including Milwaukee - during the election 'to cause chaos.' We rated that claim False, noting the decision to consolidate polling places largely came down to poll worker shortages. There also wasn't evidence to suggest Democrats would benefit from the chaos or from discouraging votes. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin later claimed Republicans pushed for longer lines and limited voting time amid the pandemic. We rated that claim Mostly False, noting the statement ignored GOP calls for early voting. Republicans did push for in-person voting during the election, but it was a stretch to say they 'pushed' for long polling lines. What's more, the number of open polling places was a local decision. The claim When asked to back up the claim, Chet Agni, a spokesperson for Barnes' campaign, said Barnes' claim was not that racist disenfranchisement caused only five polling places to be open but rather that disenfranchisement was 'an effect of only five polling places being open.' But that's not the way it was presented. In the opinion piece, the claim included a litany of criticisms of actions by the Republican-controlled Legislature, such as gerrymandering and voter ID laws and then immediately called the limited polling places 'a new kind of racist disenfranchisement.' So, let's start with some of the basics on the election. In his opinion piece, Barnes included a link to an April 9, 2020 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article that examined the reason for the limited number of polling sites in Milwaukee. In it, Neil Albrecht, then-executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission, attributed the small number of polling locations in the city to a shortage of poll workers who expressed concerns about safety at the polls. In the end, Gov. Tony Evers allowed National Guard troops to assist at the polls, but Milwaukee officials said that decision came too late for them to adjust and open more locations. Kenneth Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told PolitiFact Wisconsin voting policies in Wisconsin over the past decade - when Republicans have generally controlled state government - have had 'a disproportionate impact on communities of color, as well as other vulnerable voting groups.' But Mayer added he does 'not see evidence that the (election officials) had the goal of disenfranchising Black voters' when reducing the number of Milwaukee polling places from 180 to five. He said the consolidation of polling places made it more difficult for all voters in Milwaukee to get to the polls and noted polling place movement and consolidation is 'frequently a strategy used to make voting more difficult for minority voters.' A complex issue The issue, though, is a complex one. GOP lawmakers fought efforts to delay the April election and took a move by Evers to do so to the state Supreme Court, which ruled the election must be held as planned. And Republicans fought an effort to extend the deadline to return a mailed-in absentee ballot beyond the day of the election. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling the day before the election held that no ballots postmarked after election day should be counted. Yet, the number of polling sites were reduced throughout the city -- not just in neighborhoods with more Black voters. And reducing the number of polling places was a local decision by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat, and city election officials - not by Republicans. In the end, all of that undermines the idea that racial disenfranchisement was the purpose of the dramatically reduced number of polling places. But what about Barnes' contention that racial disenfranchisement was the result? His aide, Agni, pointed to a June 24, 2020 study from the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning public policy institute, that found the consolidation of polling places in Milwaukee during the April election reduced turnout among Black voters by 10.2% compared to past elections. Turnout among non-Black voters decreased by around 8.5% due to the consolidation, according to the study. Agni also cited an analysis of election data from researchers at two advocacy groups, All Voting Is Local and Demos, that found average voter turnout in Black and Hispanic wards was 30 percentage points lower than the average voter turnout in white wards. We did our own analysis of Spring election data for Milwaukee and found more than 53 percent fewer ballots were cast in majority-Black wards in 2020 than 2016. Roughly 37 percent fewer ballots were cast in majority-white wards in 2020 than in 2016. It was difficult to determine how many of these were cast absentee, and - as such - would not be determined by the number of in-person polling locations. Meanwhile, there may be other factors at play as well, such as the fact the 2016 primary included competitive contests on the Republican and Democratic sides, while that was not the case in 2020. Our rating Barnes claimed that GOP-backed 'racist disenfrachisement' led to only five polling places being open in Milwaukee for April 7 election. While closing polling places did appear to have a disproportionate impact on Black voters, the context of the claim suggests the goal of closing polling places was racial disenfranchisement. While Republican maneuvering contributed to the chaos and uncertainty around the election, decisions on polling places were made in Milwaukee, not Madison. We rate this claim Mostly False. | We rated that claim False, noting the decision to consolidate polling places largely came down to poll worker shortages. There also wasn't evidence to suggest Democrats would benefit from the chaos or from discouraging votes. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin later claimed Republicans pushed for longer lines and limited voting time amid the pandemic. We rated that claim Mostly False, noting the statement ignored GOP calls for early voting. Republicans did push for in-person voting during the election, but it was a stretch to say they 'pushed' for long polling lines. What's more, the number of open polling places was a local decision. The claim When asked to back up the claim, Chet Agni, a spokesperson for Barnes' campaign, said Barnes' claim was not that racist disenfranchisement caused only five polling places to be open but rather that disenfranchisement was 'an effect of only five polling places being open.' But that's not the way it was presented. In the opinion piece, the claim included a litany of criticisms of actions by the Republican-controlled Legislature, such as gerrymandering and voter ID laws and then immediately called the limited polling places 'a new kind of racist disenfranchisement.' So, let's start with some of the basics on the election. In his opinion piece, Barnes included a link to an April 9, 2020 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article that examined the reason for the limited number of polling sites in Milwaukee. In it, Neil Albrecht, then-executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission, attributed the small number of polling locations in the city to a shortage of poll workers who expressed concerns about safety at the polls. Featured Fact-check Aaron Rodgers stated on November 5, 2021 in an interview on the Pat McAfee Show 'This idea that it's the pandemic of the unvaccinated, it's just a total lie.' By Gabrielle Settles • November 8, 2021 In the end, Gov. Tony Evers allowed National Guard troops to assist at the polls, but Milwaukee officials said that decision came too late for them to adjust and open more locations. Kenneth Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told PolitiFact Wisconsin voting policies in Wisconsin over the past decade - when Republicans have generally controlled state government - have had 'a disproportionate impact on communities of color, as well as other vulnerable voting groups.' But Mayer added he does 'not see evidence that the (election officials) had the goal of disenfranchising Black voters' when reducing the number of Milwaukee polling places from 180 to five. He said the consolidation of polling places made it more difficult for all voters in Milwaukee to get to the polls and noted polling place movement and consolidation is 'frequently a strategy used to make voting more difficult for minority voters.' A complex issue The issue, though, is a complex one. GOP lawmakers fought efforts to delay the April election and took a move by Evers to do so to the state Supreme Court, which ruled the election must be held as planned. And Republicans fought an effort to extend the deadline to return a mailed-in absentee ballot beyond the day of the election. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling the day before the election held that no ballots postmarked after election day should be counted. Yet, the number of polling sites were reduced throughout the city -- not just in neighborhoods with more Black voters. And reducing the number of polling places was a local decision by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat, and city election officials - not by Republicans. In the end, all of that undermines the idea that racial disenfranchisement was the purpose of the dramatically reduced number of polling places. But what about Barnes' contention that racial disenfranchisement was the result? His aide, Agni, pointed to a June 24, 2020 study from the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning public policy institute, that found the consolidation of polling places in Milwaukee during the April election reduced turnout among Black voters by 10.2% compared to past elections. Turnout among non-Black voters decreased by around 8.5% due to the consolidation, according to the study. Agni also cited an analysis of election data from researchers at two advocacy groups, All Voting Is Local and Demos, that found average voter turnout in Black and Hispanic wards was 30 percentage points lower than the average voter turnout in white wards. We did our own analysis of Spring election data for Milwaukee and found more than 53 percent fewer ballots were cast in majority-Black wards in 2020 than 2016. Roughly 37 percent fewer ballots were cast in majority-white wards in 2020 than in 2016. It was difficult to determine how many of these were cast absentee, and - as such - would not be determined by the number of in-person polling locations. Meanwhile, there may be other factors at play as well, such as the fact the 2016 primary included competitive contests on the Republican and Democratic sides, while that was not the case in 2020. Our rating Barnes claimed that GOP-backed 'racist disenfrachisement' led to only five polling places being open in Milwaukee for April 7 election. While closing polling places did appear to have a disproportionate impact on Black voters, the context of the claim suggests the goal of closing polling places was racial disenfranchisement. While Republican maneuvering contributed to the chaos and uncertainty around the election, decisions on polling places were made in Milwaukee, not Madison. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"104370-proof-13-b0217dfb34b3cd4bd689f6e35d8bab16.jfif"
]
|
GOP-backed 'racist disenfrachisement' led to only five polling places being open in Milwaukee for April 7 election. | Contradiction | The political mudslinging surrounding who is responsible for Wisconsin's chaotic spring election is not quite over. In an Aug. 10, 2020, op-ed in The Progressive, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes a Democrat, blamed the Republican-led state Legislature for exacerbating racial inequalities in the state and described efforts to disenfranchise Black voters - 'from gerrymandering our districts to making the simple task of voting unnecessarily arduous.' He then said: 'We have one of the most restrictive voter ID laws in the country, and we saw a new kind of racist disenfranchisement play out during our catastrophic April 7 election, when there were only five polling places in Milwaukee, instead of the usual 180.' Was GOP-backed 'racist disenfranchisement' behind the decision to have only five polling places open in Milwaukee during the spring election? Let's take a look. The background Barnes isn't the first person to point fingers in the wake of the tumultuous spring election. The Republican Party of Wisconsin in early July accused Democrats of closing down voting locations in some of Wisconsin's largest cities - including Milwaukee - during the election 'to cause chaos.' We rated that claim False, noting the decision to consolidate polling places largely came down to poll worker shortages. There also wasn't evidence to suggest Democrats would benefit from the chaos or from discouraging votes. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin later claimed Republicans pushed for longer lines and limited voting time amid the pandemic. We rated that claim Mostly False, noting the statement ignored GOP calls for early voting. Republicans did push for in-person voting during the election, but it was a stretch to say they 'pushed' for long polling lines. What's more, the number of open polling places was a local decision. The claim When asked to back up the claim, Chet Agni, a spokesperson for Barnes' campaign, said Barnes' claim was not that racist disenfranchisement caused only five polling places to be open but rather that disenfranchisement was 'an effect of only five polling places being open.' But that's not the way it was presented. In the opinion piece, the claim included a litany of criticisms of actions by the Republican-controlled Legislature, such as gerrymandering and voter ID laws and then immediately called the limited polling places 'a new kind of racist disenfranchisement.' So, let's start with some of the basics on the election. In his opinion piece, Barnes included a link to an April 9, 2020 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article that examined the reason for the limited number of polling sites in Milwaukee. In it, Neil Albrecht, then-executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission, attributed the small number of polling locations in the city to a shortage of poll workers who expressed concerns about safety at the polls. In the end, Gov. Tony Evers allowed National Guard troops to assist at the polls, but Milwaukee officials said that decision came too late for them to adjust and open more locations. Kenneth Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told PolitiFact Wisconsin voting policies in Wisconsin over the past decade - when Republicans have generally controlled state government - have had 'a disproportionate impact on communities of color, as well as other vulnerable voting groups.' But Mayer added he does 'not see evidence that the (election officials) had the goal of disenfranchising Black voters' when reducing the number of Milwaukee polling places from 180 to five. He said the consolidation of polling places made it more difficult for all voters in Milwaukee to get to the polls and noted polling place movement and consolidation is 'frequently a strategy used to make voting more difficult for minority voters.' A complex issue The issue, though, is a complex one. GOP lawmakers fought efforts to delay the April election and took a move by Evers to do so to the state Supreme Court, which ruled the election must be held as planned. And Republicans fought an effort to extend the deadline to return a mailed-in absentee ballot beyond the day of the election. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling the day before the election held that no ballots postmarked after election day should be counted. Yet, the number of polling sites were reduced throughout the city -- not just in neighborhoods with more Black voters. And reducing the number of polling places was a local decision by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat, and city election officials - not by Republicans. In the end, all of that undermines the idea that racial disenfranchisement was the purpose of the dramatically reduced number of polling places. But what about Barnes' contention that racial disenfranchisement was the result? His aide, Agni, pointed to a June 24, 2020 study from the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning public policy institute, that found the consolidation of polling places in Milwaukee during the April election reduced turnout among Black voters by 10.2% compared to past elections. Turnout among non-Black voters decreased by around 8.5% due to the consolidation, according to the study. Agni also cited an analysis of election data from researchers at two advocacy groups, All Voting Is Local and Demos, that found average voter turnout in Black and Hispanic wards was 30 percentage points lower than the average voter turnout in white wards. We did our own analysis of Spring election data for Milwaukee and found more than 53 percent fewer ballots were cast in majority-Black wards in 2020 than 2016. Roughly 37 percent fewer ballots were cast in majority-white wards in 2020 than in 2016. It was difficult to determine how many of these were cast absentee, and - as such - would not be determined by the number of in-person polling locations. Meanwhile, there may be other factors at play as well, such as the fact the 2016 primary included competitive contests on the Republican and Democratic sides, while that was not the case in 2020. Our rating Barnes claimed that GOP-backed 'racist disenfrachisement' led to only five polling places being open in Milwaukee for April 7 election. While closing polling places did appear to have a disproportionate impact on Black voters, the context of the claim suggests the goal of closing polling places was racial disenfranchisement. While Republican maneuvering contributed to the chaos and uncertainty around the election, decisions on polling places were made in Milwaukee, not Madison. We rate this claim Mostly False. | We rated that claim False, noting the decision to consolidate polling places largely came down to poll worker shortages. There also wasn't evidence to suggest Democrats would benefit from the chaos or from discouraging votes. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin later claimed Republicans pushed for longer lines and limited voting time amid the pandemic. We rated that claim Mostly False, noting the statement ignored GOP calls for early voting. Republicans did push for in-person voting during the election, but it was a stretch to say they 'pushed' for long polling lines. What's more, the number of open polling places was a local decision. The claim When asked to back up the claim, Chet Agni, a spokesperson for Barnes' campaign, said Barnes' claim was not that racist disenfranchisement caused only five polling places to be open but rather that disenfranchisement was 'an effect of only five polling places being open.' But that's not the way it was presented. In the opinion piece, the claim included a litany of criticisms of actions by the Republican-controlled Legislature, such as gerrymandering and voter ID laws and then immediately called the limited polling places 'a new kind of racist disenfranchisement.' So, let's start with some of the basics on the election. In his opinion piece, Barnes included a link to an April 9, 2020 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article that examined the reason for the limited number of polling sites in Milwaukee. In it, Neil Albrecht, then-executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission, attributed the small number of polling locations in the city to a shortage of poll workers who expressed concerns about safety at the polls. Featured Fact-check Aaron Rodgers stated on November 5, 2021 in an interview on the Pat McAfee Show 'This idea that it's the pandemic of the unvaccinated, it's just a total lie.' By Gabrielle Settles • November 8, 2021 In the end, Gov. Tony Evers allowed National Guard troops to assist at the polls, but Milwaukee officials said that decision came too late for them to adjust and open more locations. Kenneth Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told PolitiFact Wisconsin voting policies in Wisconsin over the past decade - when Republicans have generally controlled state government - have had 'a disproportionate impact on communities of color, as well as other vulnerable voting groups.' But Mayer added he does 'not see evidence that the (election officials) had the goal of disenfranchising Black voters' when reducing the number of Milwaukee polling places from 180 to five. He said the consolidation of polling places made it more difficult for all voters in Milwaukee to get to the polls and noted polling place movement and consolidation is 'frequently a strategy used to make voting more difficult for minority voters.' A complex issue The issue, though, is a complex one. GOP lawmakers fought efforts to delay the April election and took a move by Evers to do so to the state Supreme Court, which ruled the election must be held as planned. And Republicans fought an effort to extend the deadline to return a mailed-in absentee ballot beyond the day of the election. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling the day before the election held that no ballots postmarked after election day should be counted. Yet, the number of polling sites were reduced throughout the city -- not just in neighborhoods with more Black voters. And reducing the number of polling places was a local decision by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat, and city election officials - not by Republicans. In the end, all of that undermines the idea that racial disenfranchisement was the purpose of the dramatically reduced number of polling places. But what about Barnes' contention that racial disenfranchisement was the result? His aide, Agni, pointed to a June 24, 2020 study from the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning public policy institute, that found the consolidation of polling places in Milwaukee during the April election reduced turnout among Black voters by 10.2% compared to past elections. Turnout among non-Black voters decreased by around 8.5% due to the consolidation, according to the study. Agni also cited an analysis of election data from researchers at two advocacy groups, All Voting Is Local and Demos, that found average voter turnout in Black and Hispanic wards was 30 percentage points lower than the average voter turnout in white wards. We did our own analysis of Spring election data for Milwaukee and found more than 53 percent fewer ballots were cast in majority-Black wards in 2020 than 2016. Roughly 37 percent fewer ballots were cast in majority-white wards in 2020 than in 2016. It was difficult to determine how many of these were cast absentee, and - as such - would not be determined by the number of in-person polling locations. Meanwhile, there may be other factors at play as well, such as the fact the 2016 primary included competitive contests on the Republican and Democratic sides, while that was not the case in 2020. Our rating Barnes claimed that GOP-backed 'racist disenfrachisement' led to only five polling places being open in Milwaukee for April 7 election. While closing polling places did appear to have a disproportionate impact on Black voters, the context of the claim suggests the goal of closing polling places was racial disenfranchisement. While Republican maneuvering contributed to the chaos and uncertainty around the election, decisions on polling places were made in Milwaukee, not Madison. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"104370-proof-13-b0217dfb34b3cd4bd689f6e35d8bab16.jfif"
]
|
GOP-backed 'racist disenfrachisement' led to only five polling places being open in Milwaukee for April 7 election. | Contradiction | The political mudslinging surrounding who is responsible for Wisconsin's chaotic spring election is not quite over. In an Aug. 10, 2020, op-ed in The Progressive, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes a Democrat, blamed the Republican-led state Legislature for exacerbating racial inequalities in the state and described efforts to disenfranchise Black voters - 'from gerrymandering our districts to making the simple task of voting unnecessarily arduous.' He then said: 'We have one of the most restrictive voter ID laws in the country, and we saw a new kind of racist disenfranchisement play out during our catastrophic April 7 election, when there were only five polling places in Milwaukee, instead of the usual 180.' Was GOP-backed 'racist disenfranchisement' behind the decision to have only five polling places open in Milwaukee during the spring election? Let's take a look. The background Barnes isn't the first person to point fingers in the wake of the tumultuous spring election. The Republican Party of Wisconsin in early July accused Democrats of closing down voting locations in some of Wisconsin's largest cities - including Milwaukee - during the election 'to cause chaos.' We rated that claim False, noting the decision to consolidate polling places largely came down to poll worker shortages. There also wasn't evidence to suggest Democrats would benefit from the chaos or from discouraging votes. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin later claimed Republicans pushed for longer lines and limited voting time amid the pandemic. We rated that claim Mostly False, noting the statement ignored GOP calls for early voting. Republicans did push for in-person voting during the election, but it was a stretch to say they 'pushed' for long polling lines. What's more, the number of open polling places was a local decision. The claim When asked to back up the claim, Chet Agni, a spokesperson for Barnes' campaign, said Barnes' claim was not that racist disenfranchisement caused only five polling places to be open but rather that disenfranchisement was 'an effect of only five polling places being open.' But that's not the way it was presented. In the opinion piece, the claim included a litany of criticisms of actions by the Republican-controlled Legislature, such as gerrymandering and voter ID laws and then immediately called the limited polling places 'a new kind of racist disenfranchisement.' So, let's start with some of the basics on the election. In his opinion piece, Barnes included a link to an April 9, 2020 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article that examined the reason for the limited number of polling sites in Milwaukee. In it, Neil Albrecht, then-executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission, attributed the small number of polling locations in the city to a shortage of poll workers who expressed concerns about safety at the polls. In the end, Gov. Tony Evers allowed National Guard troops to assist at the polls, but Milwaukee officials said that decision came too late for them to adjust and open more locations. Kenneth Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told PolitiFact Wisconsin voting policies in Wisconsin over the past decade - when Republicans have generally controlled state government - have had 'a disproportionate impact on communities of color, as well as other vulnerable voting groups.' But Mayer added he does 'not see evidence that the (election officials) had the goal of disenfranchising Black voters' when reducing the number of Milwaukee polling places from 180 to five. He said the consolidation of polling places made it more difficult for all voters in Milwaukee to get to the polls and noted polling place movement and consolidation is 'frequently a strategy used to make voting more difficult for minority voters.' A complex issue The issue, though, is a complex one. GOP lawmakers fought efforts to delay the April election and took a move by Evers to do so to the state Supreme Court, which ruled the election must be held as planned. And Republicans fought an effort to extend the deadline to return a mailed-in absentee ballot beyond the day of the election. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling the day before the election held that no ballots postmarked after election day should be counted. Yet, the number of polling sites were reduced throughout the city -- not just in neighborhoods with more Black voters. And reducing the number of polling places was a local decision by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat, and city election officials - not by Republicans. In the end, all of that undermines the idea that racial disenfranchisement was the purpose of the dramatically reduced number of polling places. But what about Barnes' contention that racial disenfranchisement was the result? His aide, Agni, pointed to a June 24, 2020 study from the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning public policy institute, that found the consolidation of polling places in Milwaukee during the April election reduced turnout among Black voters by 10.2% compared to past elections. Turnout among non-Black voters decreased by around 8.5% due to the consolidation, according to the study. Agni also cited an analysis of election data from researchers at two advocacy groups, All Voting Is Local and Demos, that found average voter turnout in Black and Hispanic wards was 30 percentage points lower than the average voter turnout in white wards. We did our own analysis of Spring election data for Milwaukee and found more than 53 percent fewer ballots were cast in majority-Black wards in 2020 than 2016. Roughly 37 percent fewer ballots were cast in majority-white wards in 2020 than in 2016. It was difficult to determine how many of these were cast absentee, and - as such - would not be determined by the number of in-person polling locations. Meanwhile, there may be other factors at play as well, such as the fact the 2016 primary included competitive contests on the Republican and Democratic sides, while that was not the case in 2020. Our rating Barnes claimed that GOP-backed 'racist disenfrachisement' led to only five polling places being open in Milwaukee for April 7 election. While closing polling places did appear to have a disproportionate impact on Black voters, the context of the claim suggests the goal of closing polling places was racial disenfranchisement. While Republican maneuvering contributed to the chaos and uncertainty around the election, decisions on polling places were made in Milwaukee, not Madison. We rate this claim Mostly False. | We rated that claim False, noting the decision to consolidate polling places largely came down to poll worker shortages. There also wasn't evidence to suggest Democrats would benefit from the chaos or from discouraging votes. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin later claimed Republicans pushed for longer lines and limited voting time amid the pandemic. We rated that claim Mostly False, noting the statement ignored GOP calls for early voting. Republicans did push for in-person voting during the election, but it was a stretch to say they 'pushed' for long polling lines. What's more, the number of open polling places was a local decision. The claim When asked to back up the claim, Chet Agni, a spokesperson for Barnes' campaign, said Barnes' claim was not that racist disenfranchisement caused only five polling places to be open but rather that disenfranchisement was 'an effect of only five polling places being open.' But that's not the way it was presented. In the opinion piece, the claim included a litany of criticisms of actions by the Republican-controlled Legislature, such as gerrymandering and voter ID laws and then immediately called the limited polling places 'a new kind of racist disenfranchisement.' So, let's start with some of the basics on the election. In his opinion piece, Barnes included a link to an April 9, 2020 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article that examined the reason for the limited number of polling sites in Milwaukee. In it, Neil Albrecht, then-executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission, attributed the small number of polling locations in the city to a shortage of poll workers who expressed concerns about safety at the polls. Featured Fact-check Aaron Rodgers stated on November 5, 2021 in an interview on the Pat McAfee Show 'This idea that it's the pandemic of the unvaccinated, it's just a total lie.' By Gabrielle Settles • November 8, 2021 In the end, Gov. Tony Evers allowed National Guard troops to assist at the polls, but Milwaukee officials said that decision came too late for them to adjust and open more locations. Kenneth Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told PolitiFact Wisconsin voting policies in Wisconsin over the past decade - when Republicans have generally controlled state government - have had 'a disproportionate impact on communities of color, as well as other vulnerable voting groups.' But Mayer added he does 'not see evidence that the (election officials) had the goal of disenfranchising Black voters' when reducing the number of Milwaukee polling places from 180 to five. He said the consolidation of polling places made it more difficult for all voters in Milwaukee to get to the polls and noted polling place movement and consolidation is 'frequently a strategy used to make voting more difficult for minority voters.' A complex issue The issue, though, is a complex one. GOP lawmakers fought efforts to delay the April election and took a move by Evers to do so to the state Supreme Court, which ruled the election must be held as planned. And Republicans fought an effort to extend the deadline to return a mailed-in absentee ballot beyond the day of the election. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling the day before the election held that no ballots postmarked after election day should be counted. Yet, the number of polling sites were reduced throughout the city -- not just in neighborhoods with more Black voters. And reducing the number of polling places was a local decision by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat, and city election officials - not by Republicans. In the end, all of that undermines the idea that racial disenfranchisement was the purpose of the dramatically reduced number of polling places. But what about Barnes' contention that racial disenfranchisement was the result? His aide, Agni, pointed to a June 24, 2020 study from the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning public policy institute, that found the consolidation of polling places in Milwaukee during the April election reduced turnout among Black voters by 10.2% compared to past elections. Turnout among non-Black voters decreased by around 8.5% due to the consolidation, according to the study. Agni also cited an analysis of election data from researchers at two advocacy groups, All Voting Is Local and Demos, that found average voter turnout in Black and Hispanic wards was 30 percentage points lower than the average voter turnout in white wards. We did our own analysis of Spring election data for Milwaukee and found more than 53 percent fewer ballots were cast in majority-Black wards in 2020 than 2016. Roughly 37 percent fewer ballots were cast in majority-white wards in 2020 than in 2016. It was difficult to determine how many of these were cast absentee, and - as such - would not be determined by the number of in-person polling locations. Meanwhile, there may be other factors at play as well, such as the fact the 2016 primary included competitive contests on the Republican and Democratic sides, while that was not the case in 2020. Our rating Barnes claimed that GOP-backed 'racist disenfrachisement' led to only five polling places being open in Milwaukee for April 7 election. While closing polling places did appear to have a disproportionate impact on Black voters, the context of the claim suggests the goal of closing polling places was racial disenfranchisement. While Republican maneuvering contributed to the chaos and uncertainty around the election, decisions on polling places were made in Milwaukee, not Madison. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"104370-proof-13-b0217dfb34b3cd4bd689f6e35d8bab16.jfif"
]
|
'You are more likely, as a child, to end up in the hospital because of the vaccine than you are because of COVID. That's data from the CDC and from VAERS. | Contradiction | Fox News host Will Cain falsely claimed the COVID-19 vaccines are more dangerous for children than COVID-19, citing an open-system database that is frequently misused to promote anti-vaccine misinformation. 'We know from VAERS reporting - Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting - and although it's imperfect, we know from that, the risk to children from the vaccine outweighs the risk to COVID,' Cain said on 'Fox News Primetime' Oct. 1. 'This comes in the form of hospitalizations.' 'You are more likely, as a child, to end up in the hospital because of the vaccine than you are because of COVID,' Cain continued. 'That's data from the CDC and from VAERS.' VAERS is short for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, not 'Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting.' The federal database is open to anyone, and reports to it are not verified before they go public, making it a source that has been exploited by anti-vaccine activists as well as other Fox News hosts. PolitiFact consulted data, research and experts in pediatrics and infectious diseases. We found Cain's statement to be inaccurate. Children have generally fared better against COVID-19 than adults. But the disease presents a far greater risk than the vaccines, which have proven safe and effective and are recommended for ages 12 and up by public health agencies and medical associations. To date, children 12 years or older are approved only to get the Pfizer vaccine. 'You're far more likely to get sick and hospitalized if you get a COVID infection than if you get the vaccine,' said Dr. Sean O'Leary, a professor at the University of Colorado and the vice chair of the committee on infectious diseases at the American Academy of Pediatrics. One September CDC report said COVID-19 'hospitalization rates were 10 times higher among unvaccinated than among fully vaccinated adolescents.' Another study from July estimated that every million second dose of the Pfizer vaccine administered to children ages 12 to 17 would prevent 215 COVID-19 hospitalizations on average for boys, and 183 for girls. On its website, the agency contradicts Cain's claim: 'CDC continues to recommend that everyone aged 12 years and older get vaccinated for COVID-19. The known risks of COVID-19 illness and its related, possibly severe complications, such as long-term health problems, hospitalization, and even death, far outweigh the potential risks of having a rare adverse reaction to vaccination, including the possible risk of myocarditis or pericarditis.' 'The claim by Will Cain is completely false and contradicted by actual data,' said Dr. Mark Schleiss, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota. Payton Nguyen, 12, receives the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine from nurse Lakera Thorne at Providence Edwards Lifesciences vaccination site in Santa Ana, Calif., on May 13, 2021. (AP) VAERS cannot establish causality Cain said on air that his claim about child hospitalizations because of the vaccine was based on VAERS, a database that he acknowledged to be 'imperfect.' VAERS is useful for researchers, helping them collect data and identify patterns for further examination. But reports to VAERS are not vetted before they go online, so they are not reliable for back-of-the-napkin math, and they are not enough to show cause and effect, experts said. 'VAERS does not determine causality. It is simply a safety signal fail-safe,' said Schleiss. 'A kid might get a COVID vaccine and then break her leg playing basketball and be hospitalized.' 'This is a common misuse of VAERS data,' added Dr. Dean Blumberg, the chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Davis. A disclaimer on the VAERS website says 'VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness,' and 'may include information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverifiable.' Anyone accessing VAERS must click a button saying they read and understand the disclaimer. PolitiFact reviewed VAERS and identified around 1,000 reports of a hospitalization among children ages 12 to 17 since May, when they became eligible for the Pfizer shot. That's a tiny percentage of the roughly 14.5 million children ages 12 to 17 who have gotten at least one dose of the vaccine, and nearly 12 million are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Cherry-picked numbers Another problem was Cain's data. Doctors said it was cherry picked, and it came from another vaccine after-effects database, not VAERS. When asked for evidence to support his claim about child hospitalizations caused by the COVID-19 vaccines, Cain pointed through a Fox News spokesperson not to VAERS, but to a slide from a June presentation by the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The slide cited data from a newer vaccine database, v-safe, which uses surveys sent through smartphones to collect information from vaccine recipients who voluntarily sign up. The slide said that through mid June, 0.1% of v-safe enrollees ages 12 to 15 received 'medical care in emergency dept/hospital' after their first Pfizer dose, and 0.2% after their second. Like VAERS, the v-safe database is subject to many limitations, and the responses it collects cannot be used to establish causality. 'It's by no means a representative sample,' O'Leary said. 'That's (Cain) cherry-picking data and misusing data to represent his position.' 'V-safe does not record reason for hospitalization, and it cannot be determined whether hospitalization was related to vaccination,' a more recent CDC review of v-safe data said. That more recent report, published in August, reviewed v-safe responses through mid-July. Hospitalizations were reported by 0.02% of v-safe enrollees ages 12 to 15 after their first Pfizer shot; 0.04% of enrollees ages 12 to 15 after the second dose; 0.02% of enrollees ages 16 to 17 after the first dose; and 0.03% of enrollees ages 16 to 17 after the second dose. For hospitalizations from COVID-19, Cain cited preliminary hospitalization data from the CDC's COVID-NET, which logged 4,228 hospitalizations for children ages 0 to 17 through Sept. 25. But experts said that data is prone to undercounting, since COVID-NET is based on just 100 counties across 10 states. The data's flaws should be clear, Schleiss said, because it says that only 216,311 adults ages 18 and up have been hospitalized since the start of the pandemic. 'Heck, the rolling 7-day average number of hospitalizations, according to the CDC, is about 70,000,' Schleiss said. 'At that pace, the COVID-NET numbers would be surpassed in three days. COVID-NET is just a tiny sampling.' The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children's Hospital Association provide a more accurate count of child hospitalizations from COVID-19, experts said. Those organizations listed 22,429 hospitalizations for children and a 0.9% hospitalization rate through Sept. 30, based on reporting from 24 states and New York City. Other considerations Cain's claim also glossed over other realities about COVID-19, including that the disease has killed hundreds of children and hobbled many with long-term symptoms. O'Leary said an estimated 1 in 3,200 children who get COVID-19 develop MISC, a rare inflammatory syndrome. The American Academy of Pediatrics and Children's Hospital Association counted 520 deaths to children from COVID-19 through Sept. 30, based on reporting from 45 states and New York City, while the CDC says VAERS reports have 'not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.' 'There is no question that it is safer for children to be vaccinated against COVID, and that unvaccinated children have an overall higher risk of hospitalization,' Blumberg said. | Our ruling Cain said, 'You are more likely, as a child, to end up in the hospital because of the vaccine than you are because of COVID. That's data from the CDC and from VAERS.' The claim relied on the faulty assumption that the unverified reports submitted to VAERS can establish causation. Doctors rejected Cain's claim as false and misleading. The experts said the data Cain provided to PolitiFact was cherry-picked, and that children are far more likely to be hospitalized from COVID-19 than the vaccine. We rate Cain's claim False. RELATED: Doubts raised over preprint study regarding myocarditis risk in teenage boys RELATED: Science Does Recommend COVID-19 Vaccine For Young People, Contrary To Larry Elder's Claim | [
"104378-proof-21-3578a5cbe9cf5a123e781111cf0276bd.jpg",
"104378-proof-32-AP_21134009882240_1.jpg"
]
|
'You are more likely, as a child, to end up in the hospital because of the vaccine than you are because of COVID. That's data from the CDC and from VAERS. | Contradiction | Fox News host Will Cain falsely claimed the COVID-19 vaccines are more dangerous for children than COVID-19, citing an open-system database that is frequently misused to promote anti-vaccine misinformation. 'We know from VAERS reporting - Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting - and although it's imperfect, we know from that, the risk to children from the vaccine outweighs the risk to COVID,' Cain said on 'Fox News Primetime' Oct. 1. 'This comes in the form of hospitalizations.' 'You are more likely, as a child, to end up in the hospital because of the vaccine than you are because of COVID,' Cain continued. 'That's data from the CDC and from VAERS.' VAERS is short for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, not 'Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting.' The federal database is open to anyone, and reports to it are not verified before they go public, making it a source that has been exploited by anti-vaccine activists as well as other Fox News hosts. PolitiFact consulted data, research and experts in pediatrics and infectious diseases. We found Cain's statement to be inaccurate. Children have generally fared better against COVID-19 than adults. But the disease presents a far greater risk than the vaccines, which have proven safe and effective and are recommended for ages 12 and up by public health agencies and medical associations. To date, children 12 years or older are approved only to get the Pfizer vaccine. 'You're far more likely to get sick and hospitalized if you get a COVID infection than if you get the vaccine,' said Dr. Sean O'Leary, a professor at the University of Colorado and the vice chair of the committee on infectious diseases at the American Academy of Pediatrics. One September CDC report said COVID-19 'hospitalization rates were 10 times higher among unvaccinated than among fully vaccinated adolescents.' Another study from July estimated that every million second dose of the Pfizer vaccine administered to children ages 12 to 17 would prevent 215 COVID-19 hospitalizations on average for boys, and 183 for girls. On its website, the agency contradicts Cain's claim: 'CDC continues to recommend that everyone aged 12 years and older get vaccinated for COVID-19. The known risks of COVID-19 illness and its related, possibly severe complications, such as long-term health problems, hospitalization, and even death, far outweigh the potential risks of having a rare adverse reaction to vaccination, including the possible risk of myocarditis or pericarditis.' 'The claim by Will Cain is completely false and contradicted by actual data,' said Dr. Mark Schleiss, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota. Payton Nguyen, 12, receives the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine from nurse Lakera Thorne at Providence Edwards Lifesciences vaccination site in Santa Ana, Calif., on May 13, 2021. (AP) VAERS cannot establish causality Cain said on air that his claim about child hospitalizations because of the vaccine was based on VAERS, a database that he acknowledged to be 'imperfect.' VAERS is useful for researchers, helping them collect data and identify patterns for further examination. But reports to VAERS are not vetted before they go online, so they are not reliable for back-of-the-napkin math, and they are not enough to show cause and effect, experts said. 'VAERS does not determine causality. It is simply a safety signal fail-safe,' said Schleiss. 'A kid might get a COVID vaccine and then break her leg playing basketball and be hospitalized.' 'This is a common misuse of VAERS data,' added Dr. Dean Blumberg, the chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Davis. A disclaimer on the VAERS website says 'VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness,' and 'may include information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverifiable.' Anyone accessing VAERS must click a button saying they read and understand the disclaimer. PolitiFact reviewed VAERS and identified around 1,000 reports of a hospitalization among children ages 12 to 17 since May, when they became eligible for the Pfizer shot. That's a tiny percentage of the roughly 14.5 million children ages 12 to 17 who have gotten at least one dose of the vaccine, and nearly 12 million are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Cherry-picked numbers Another problem was Cain's data. Doctors said it was cherry picked, and it came from another vaccine after-effects database, not VAERS. When asked for evidence to support his claim about child hospitalizations caused by the COVID-19 vaccines, Cain pointed through a Fox News spokesperson not to VAERS, but to a slide from a June presentation by the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The slide cited data from a newer vaccine database, v-safe, which uses surveys sent through smartphones to collect information from vaccine recipients who voluntarily sign up. The slide said that through mid June, 0.1% of v-safe enrollees ages 12 to 15 received 'medical care in emergency dept/hospital' after their first Pfizer dose, and 0.2% after their second. Like VAERS, the v-safe database is subject to many limitations, and the responses it collects cannot be used to establish causality. 'It's by no means a representative sample,' O'Leary said. 'That's (Cain) cherry-picking data and misusing data to represent his position.' 'V-safe does not record reason for hospitalization, and it cannot be determined whether hospitalization was related to vaccination,' a more recent CDC review of v-safe data said. That more recent report, published in August, reviewed v-safe responses through mid-July. Hospitalizations were reported by 0.02% of v-safe enrollees ages 12 to 15 after their first Pfizer shot; 0.04% of enrollees ages 12 to 15 after the second dose; 0.02% of enrollees ages 16 to 17 after the first dose; and 0.03% of enrollees ages 16 to 17 after the second dose. For hospitalizations from COVID-19, Cain cited preliminary hospitalization data from the CDC's COVID-NET, which logged 4,228 hospitalizations for children ages 0 to 17 through Sept. 25. But experts said that data is prone to undercounting, since COVID-NET is based on just 100 counties across 10 states. The data's flaws should be clear, Schleiss said, because it says that only 216,311 adults ages 18 and up have been hospitalized since the start of the pandemic. 'Heck, the rolling 7-day average number of hospitalizations, according to the CDC, is about 70,000,' Schleiss said. 'At that pace, the COVID-NET numbers would be surpassed in three days. COVID-NET is just a tiny sampling.' The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children's Hospital Association provide a more accurate count of child hospitalizations from COVID-19, experts said. Those organizations listed 22,429 hospitalizations for children and a 0.9% hospitalization rate through Sept. 30, based on reporting from 24 states and New York City. Other considerations Cain's claim also glossed over other realities about COVID-19, including that the disease has killed hundreds of children and hobbled many with long-term symptoms. O'Leary said an estimated 1 in 3,200 children who get COVID-19 develop MISC, a rare inflammatory syndrome. The American Academy of Pediatrics and Children's Hospital Association counted 520 deaths to children from COVID-19 through Sept. 30, based on reporting from 45 states and New York City, while the CDC says VAERS reports have 'not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.' 'There is no question that it is safer for children to be vaccinated against COVID, and that unvaccinated children have an overall higher risk of hospitalization,' Blumberg said. | Our ruling Cain said, 'You are more likely, as a child, to end up in the hospital because of the vaccine than you are because of COVID. That's data from the CDC and from VAERS.' The claim relied on the faulty assumption that the unverified reports submitted to VAERS can establish causation. Doctors rejected Cain's claim as false and misleading. The experts said the data Cain provided to PolitiFact was cherry-picked, and that children are far more likely to be hospitalized from COVID-19 than the vaccine. We rate Cain's claim False. RELATED: Doubts raised over preprint study regarding myocarditis risk in teenage boys RELATED: Science Does Recommend COVID-19 Vaccine For Young People, Contrary To Larry Elder's Claim | [
"104378-proof-21-3578a5cbe9cf5a123e781111cf0276bd.jpg",
"104378-proof-32-AP_21134009882240_1.jpg"
]
|
'You are more likely, as a child, to end up in the hospital because of the vaccine than you are because of COVID. That's data from the CDC and from VAERS. | Contradiction | Fox News host Will Cain falsely claimed the COVID-19 vaccines are more dangerous for children than COVID-19, citing an open-system database that is frequently misused to promote anti-vaccine misinformation. 'We know from VAERS reporting - Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting - and although it's imperfect, we know from that, the risk to children from the vaccine outweighs the risk to COVID,' Cain said on 'Fox News Primetime' Oct. 1. 'This comes in the form of hospitalizations.' 'You are more likely, as a child, to end up in the hospital because of the vaccine than you are because of COVID,' Cain continued. 'That's data from the CDC and from VAERS.' VAERS is short for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, not 'Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting.' The federal database is open to anyone, and reports to it are not verified before they go public, making it a source that has been exploited by anti-vaccine activists as well as other Fox News hosts. PolitiFact consulted data, research and experts in pediatrics and infectious diseases. We found Cain's statement to be inaccurate. Children have generally fared better against COVID-19 than adults. But the disease presents a far greater risk than the vaccines, which have proven safe and effective and are recommended for ages 12 and up by public health agencies and medical associations. To date, children 12 years or older are approved only to get the Pfizer vaccine. 'You're far more likely to get sick and hospitalized if you get a COVID infection than if you get the vaccine,' said Dr. Sean O'Leary, a professor at the University of Colorado and the vice chair of the committee on infectious diseases at the American Academy of Pediatrics. One September CDC report said COVID-19 'hospitalization rates were 10 times higher among unvaccinated than among fully vaccinated adolescents.' Another study from July estimated that every million second dose of the Pfizer vaccine administered to children ages 12 to 17 would prevent 215 COVID-19 hospitalizations on average for boys, and 183 for girls. On its website, the agency contradicts Cain's claim: 'CDC continues to recommend that everyone aged 12 years and older get vaccinated for COVID-19. The known risks of COVID-19 illness and its related, possibly severe complications, such as long-term health problems, hospitalization, and even death, far outweigh the potential risks of having a rare adverse reaction to vaccination, including the possible risk of myocarditis or pericarditis.' 'The claim by Will Cain is completely false and contradicted by actual data,' said Dr. Mark Schleiss, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota. Payton Nguyen, 12, receives the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine from nurse Lakera Thorne at Providence Edwards Lifesciences vaccination site in Santa Ana, Calif., on May 13, 2021. (AP) VAERS cannot establish causality Cain said on air that his claim about child hospitalizations because of the vaccine was based on VAERS, a database that he acknowledged to be 'imperfect.' VAERS is useful for researchers, helping them collect data and identify patterns for further examination. But reports to VAERS are not vetted before they go online, so they are not reliable for back-of-the-napkin math, and they are not enough to show cause and effect, experts said. 'VAERS does not determine causality. It is simply a safety signal fail-safe,' said Schleiss. 'A kid might get a COVID vaccine and then break her leg playing basketball and be hospitalized.' 'This is a common misuse of VAERS data,' added Dr. Dean Blumberg, the chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Davis. A disclaimer on the VAERS website says 'VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness,' and 'may include information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverifiable.' Anyone accessing VAERS must click a button saying they read and understand the disclaimer. PolitiFact reviewed VAERS and identified around 1,000 reports of a hospitalization among children ages 12 to 17 since May, when they became eligible for the Pfizer shot. That's a tiny percentage of the roughly 14.5 million children ages 12 to 17 who have gotten at least one dose of the vaccine, and nearly 12 million are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Cherry-picked numbers Another problem was Cain's data. Doctors said it was cherry picked, and it came from another vaccine after-effects database, not VAERS. When asked for evidence to support his claim about child hospitalizations caused by the COVID-19 vaccines, Cain pointed through a Fox News spokesperson not to VAERS, but to a slide from a June presentation by the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The slide cited data from a newer vaccine database, v-safe, which uses surveys sent through smartphones to collect information from vaccine recipients who voluntarily sign up. The slide said that through mid June, 0.1% of v-safe enrollees ages 12 to 15 received 'medical care in emergency dept/hospital' after their first Pfizer dose, and 0.2% after their second. Like VAERS, the v-safe database is subject to many limitations, and the responses it collects cannot be used to establish causality. 'It's by no means a representative sample,' O'Leary said. 'That's (Cain) cherry-picking data and misusing data to represent his position.' 'V-safe does not record reason for hospitalization, and it cannot be determined whether hospitalization was related to vaccination,' a more recent CDC review of v-safe data said. That more recent report, published in August, reviewed v-safe responses through mid-July. Hospitalizations were reported by 0.02% of v-safe enrollees ages 12 to 15 after their first Pfizer shot; 0.04% of enrollees ages 12 to 15 after the second dose; 0.02% of enrollees ages 16 to 17 after the first dose; and 0.03% of enrollees ages 16 to 17 after the second dose. For hospitalizations from COVID-19, Cain cited preliminary hospitalization data from the CDC's COVID-NET, which logged 4,228 hospitalizations for children ages 0 to 17 through Sept. 25. But experts said that data is prone to undercounting, since COVID-NET is based on just 100 counties across 10 states. The data's flaws should be clear, Schleiss said, because it says that only 216,311 adults ages 18 and up have been hospitalized since the start of the pandemic. 'Heck, the rolling 7-day average number of hospitalizations, according to the CDC, is about 70,000,' Schleiss said. 'At that pace, the COVID-NET numbers would be surpassed in three days. COVID-NET is just a tiny sampling.' The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children's Hospital Association provide a more accurate count of child hospitalizations from COVID-19, experts said. Those organizations listed 22,429 hospitalizations for children and a 0.9% hospitalization rate through Sept. 30, based on reporting from 24 states and New York City. Other considerations Cain's claim also glossed over other realities about COVID-19, including that the disease has killed hundreds of children and hobbled many with long-term symptoms. O'Leary said an estimated 1 in 3,200 children who get COVID-19 develop MISC, a rare inflammatory syndrome. The American Academy of Pediatrics and Children's Hospital Association counted 520 deaths to children from COVID-19 through Sept. 30, based on reporting from 45 states and New York City, while the CDC says VAERS reports have 'not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.' 'There is no question that it is safer for children to be vaccinated against COVID, and that unvaccinated children have an overall higher risk of hospitalization,' Blumberg said. | Our ruling Cain said, 'You are more likely, as a child, to end up in the hospital because of the vaccine than you are because of COVID. That's data from the CDC and from VAERS.' The claim relied on the faulty assumption that the unverified reports submitted to VAERS can establish causation. Doctors rejected Cain's claim as false and misleading. The experts said the data Cain provided to PolitiFact was cherry-picked, and that children are far more likely to be hospitalized from COVID-19 than the vaccine. We rate Cain's claim False. RELATED: Doubts raised over preprint study regarding myocarditis risk in teenage boys RELATED: Science Does Recommend COVID-19 Vaccine For Young People, Contrary To Larry Elder's Claim | [
"104378-proof-21-3578a5cbe9cf5a123e781111cf0276bd.jpg",
"104378-proof-32-AP_21134009882240_1.jpg"
]
|
A person's immune system 'tanks' after their second COVID-19 vaccine dose. | Contradiction | A chiropractor from Illinois caused a stir online after he posted a YouTube video that he said showed a patient's blood work before and after they received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. In the video, Nathan Thompson, the president of Exemplify Health Center, claimed the results showed that the shots made the immune system 'tank' and that 'it can't be false because this is medical testing.' The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Thompson avoided saying or spelling out the word vaccine throughout the video to skirt YouTube's regulations on vaccine misinformation, but it was still taken down. By then, however, his message had already jumped to other websites. Thompson said he ran blood work for a type-2 diabetic patient before the man was compelled by his employer to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The results shown appear in the 'normal' range. In subsequent panels, which Thompson said were collected after the patient received his first and second doses, the numbers changed. For example, the post-second dose results show that the man's granulocytes - a type of white blood cell that contains proteins that help the body fight bacterial infections - went from 58.9 to 79.6. Meanwhile, his lymphocytes - white blood cells that include natural killer cells and immunity-building T and B cells - dropped from 33.8 to 13.8, the results showed. 'His adaptive immune system absolutely has tanked,' Thompson said. We asked multiple medical experts to review those results, and they said the numbers don't come close to showing a crashed or suppressed immune system. Meanwhile, there has been no evidence in clinical trials where blood counts were taken that the COVID-19 vaccines weaken the immune system. 'These types of changes (in lab work) frequently occur,' said Dr. Stanley Perlman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Iowa. 'Things change all the time without it mattering much. In the absence of more information, these numbers don't mean anything to me.' 'There are all kinds of variations that happen when you measure the immune system and there's going to be some natural fluctuation that occurs,' said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. 'As someone who looks at CBC (complete blood count) panels for patients all day, those numbers aren't worrisome and don't constitute the immune system 'crashing'.' Research from the CDC and others show that the vaccines boost the body's immune response, not lower it. For example, one Aug. 13 CDC report found that people who had been infected with COVID-19 in 2020 got a dramatic boost in virus-killing immune cells later because they were vaccinated. Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, said the suggestion that the immune system is weakened by the COVID-19 shots rather than bolstered by them isn't supported by clinical trial data, which includes thousands of people. 'This wasn't observed in any of the phase 3 trials, where complete blood counts were obtained,' he said. Different types of vaccines work in different ways to offer protection, but with all types, the body is left with a supply of T-lymphocytes and B-lymphocytes that will remember how to fight that virus in the future. Vaccines help develop immunity by imitating an infection and can sometimes cause symptoms, such as fever. Some believe that natural immunity from having COVID-19 itself is better than the immunity provided by vaccines. But natural infections can cause severe complications and be deadly. This is true even for diseases that many people consider mild, like chickenpox. It is impossible to predict who will get serious infections that may lead to hospitalization and people are often leaving it up to chance by not getting vaccinated, health experts say. | Our ruling In a video a chiropractor claims that the blood work results of a patient before and after they received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine show that the shots caused the immune system to 'tank.' Multiple medical experts reviewed screenshots of the lab results and said they were meaningless without more information and didn't reflect a crashing or suppressed immune system. The notion that vaccines weaken the immune system wasn't observed in clinical trials for the vaccines where blood counts were obtained, experts said. We rate this False. | []
|
A person's immune system 'tanks' after their second COVID-19 vaccine dose. | Contradiction | A chiropractor from Illinois caused a stir online after he posted a YouTube video that he said showed a patient's blood work before and after they received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. In the video, Nathan Thompson, the president of Exemplify Health Center, claimed the results showed that the shots made the immune system 'tank' and that 'it can't be false because this is medical testing.' The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Thompson avoided saying or spelling out the word vaccine throughout the video to skirt YouTube's regulations on vaccine misinformation, but it was still taken down. By then, however, his message had already jumped to other websites. Thompson said he ran blood work for a type-2 diabetic patient before the man was compelled by his employer to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The results shown appear in the 'normal' range. In subsequent panels, which Thompson said were collected after the patient received his first and second doses, the numbers changed. For example, the post-second dose results show that the man's granulocytes - a type of white blood cell that contains proteins that help the body fight bacterial infections - went from 58.9 to 79.6. Meanwhile, his lymphocytes - white blood cells that include natural killer cells and immunity-building T and B cells - dropped from 33.8 to 13.8, the results showed. 'His adaptive immune system absolutely has tanked,' Thompson said. We asked multiple medical experts to review those results, and they said the numbers don't come close to showing a crashed or suppressed immune system. Meanwhile, there has been no evidence in clinical trials where blood counts were taken that the COVID-19 vaccines weaken the immune system. 'These types of changes (in lab work) frequently occur,' said Dr. Stanley Perlman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Iowa. 'Things change all the time without it mattering much. In the absence of more information, these numbers don't mean anything to me.' 'There are all kinds of variations that happen when you measure the immune system and there's going to be some natural fluctuation that occurs,' said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. 'As someone who looks at CBC (complete blood count) panels for patients all day, those numbers aren't worrisome and don't constitute the immune system 'crashing'.' Research from the CDC and others show that the vaccines boost the body's immune response, not lower it. For example, one Aug. 13 CDC report found that people who had been infected with COVID-19 in 2020 got a dramatic boost in virus-killing immune cells later because they were vaccinated. Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, said the suggestion that the immune system is weakened by the COVID-19 shots rather than bolstered by them isn't supported by clinical trial data, which includes thousands of people. 'This wasn't observed in any of the phase 3 trials, where complete blood counts were obtained,' he said. Different types of vaccines work in different ways to offer protection, but with all types, the body is left with a supply of T-lymphocytes and B-lymphocytes that will remember how to fight that virus in the future. Vaccines help develop immunity by imitating an infection and can sometimes cause symptoms, such as fever. Some believe that natural immunity from having COVID-19 itself is better than the immunity provided by vaccines. But natural infections can cause severe complications and be deadly. This is true even for diseases that many people consider mild, like chickenpox. It is impossible to predict who will get serious infections that may lead to hospitalization and people are often leaving it up to chance by not getting vaccinated, health experts say. | Our ruling In a video a chiropractor claims that the blood work results of a patient before and after they received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine show that the shots caused the immune system to 'tank.' Multiple medical experts reviewed screenshots of the lab results and said they were meaningless without more information and didn't reflect a crashing or suppressed immune system. The notion that vaccines weaken the immune system wasn't observed in clinical trials for the vaccines where blood counts were obtained, experts said. We rate this False. | []
|
'The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION recently reversed its stance on children getting the Covid vaccine. | Contradiction | A social media post on Instagram claims that the World Health Organization recently flipped its policy recommendation about children receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. 'The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION recently reversed its stance on children getting the Covid vaccine. Sorry to all those dumb parents who rushed out to get their 12 year olds vaccinated. Oops you injected your kids with poison and it's no longer recommended. Personally no one should but at least save the children!,' the post reads. A photo posted alongside the caption is a screenshot from the World Health Organization's website, with the words circled in red: 'Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.' The screen grab also shows the following paragraph with the words underlined in red: 'There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) Others have been spreading similar messages on social media about this alleged change in the WHO's stance on COVID-19 vaccines for children, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). The topic also dominated vaccine-related Google searches on June 22, according to Google Trends data. Mining the webpage The screen grab posted on Instagram was indeed taken directly from the WHO's webpage and the text had not been altered. The purpose of that specific webpage is to give the public advice on who should receive a COVID-19 vaccine. The webpage stated, 'Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.' However, this was not new guidance from the WHO. The organization first posted this guidance on April 8, according to our analysis of the webpage through the Wayback Machine, an internet archive service, and First Draft, a nonprofit group that analyzes misinformation on the web. When we reached out to the WHO on June 22 to ask officials about the webpage's wording and whether they had reversed their stance, a spokesperson sent the following statement: 'Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers. 'More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19. 'WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) has concluded that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is suitable for use by people aged 12 years and above. Children aged between 12 and 15 who are at high risk may be offered this vaccine alongside other priority groups. Vaccine trials for children are ongoing and WHO will update its recommendations when the evidence or epidemiological situation warrants a change in policy. 'It's important for children to continue to have the recommended childhood vaccines.' The WHO updated its webpage June 23, replacing the language, 'children should not be vaccinated for the moment,' with the precise language sent in the statement above. Jen Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at KFF, said she reached out to a WHO contact who told her this updated language was added to reflect the latest advice from the WHO's June 15 meeting of the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts, which said the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine can be given to those age 12 and older. The WHO's stance The WHO's chief scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, explained in a June 11 video why the WHO was not prioritizing COVID-19 vaccines for children. 'So, the reason that today, in June 2021, WHO is saying that vaccinating children is not a priority is because children, though they can get infected with COVID-19 and they can transmit the infection to others, they are at much lower risk of getting severe disease compared to older adults,' Swaminathan said. 'And that is why, when we started prioritizing people who should get the vaccination when there are limited supplies of vaccines available in the country, we recommend that we start with health care workers and front-line workers who are at very high risk of exposure to the infection. Also elderly, the people who have underlying illnesses that make them at high risk to develop severe disease.' Dr. Rachel Vreeman, director of the Arnhold Institute for Global Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, confirmed that the statements on WHO's webpage were focused on whom to prioritize most urgently in getting COVID-19 vaccines. 'They are not saying that children should not be vaccinated against COVID or that the vaccines currently approved for use in children 12 years old and above are not safe,' Vreeman wrote in an email. 'The WHO is saying that the global priority should be on getting more adults vaccinated, since older adults are at the highest risk of serious complications and death from COVID-19.' 'In the face of massive inequities in who has access to COVID-19 vaccines globally, the WHO advises that those at highest risk - older adults - be prioritized first,' Vreeman wrote. Recommendations of COVID-19 vaccines for children in the U.S. It's also important to consider that supplies of the COVID-19 vaccines are no longer limited in the U.S., as they are in other parts of the world. So, having to ration the vaccine for only health care workers or those who are older or at higher risk for severe disease does not apply here. Remember, the WHO is a global organization, so its recommendations need to be applicable to countries worldwide. In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that everyone age 12 and over should receive a COVID-19 vaccine. In the U.S., the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has been authorized for emergency use in children ages 12 through 18 and adults of all ages. The American Academy of Pediatrics also recommends that children age 12 and up receive a COVID-19 vaccine. So does Vreeman, who is a pediatrician. 'As a pediatrician in the United States, in a setting where the COVID-19 vaccine is widely available, I whole-heartedly recommend that children 12 years old and up receive the COVID-19 vaccination as soon as possible,' Vreeman wrote in an email. 'The data show that the vaccines are safe and effective for this age group, and we want to prevent the risks that COVID-19 does present to children.' | Our ruling An Instagram post and other posts across social media falsely claimed that the WHO recently reversed its stance on children receiving a COVID-19 vaccine because the vaccines were 'poison' and would be dangerous for children. The WHO first posted its guidance for children and COVID-19 vaccinations on April 8. That guidance did include the wording, 'Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.' But, that wording was a reflection of the WHO saying that children should not be prioritized for vaccinations over other groups because in many countries supplies of vaccine are limited and health care workers, front-line workers, the elderly and those with high-risk medical conditions should have first dibs. There's no evidence the WHO 'reversed' its position on childhood COVID-19 vaccination in the way the viral social media posts allege. The WHO updated its guidance on June 23 to reflect a meeting of one of its scientific advisory groups, which said the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine could be safely given to children ages 12 and up. But this came after those misleading posts first appeared. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION recently reversed its stance on children getting the Covid vaccine. | Contradiction | A social media post on Instagram claims that the World Health Organization recently flipped its policy recommendation about children receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. 'The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION recently reversed its stance on children getting the Covid vaccine. Sorry to all those dumb parents who rushed out to get their 12 year olds vaccinated. Oops you injected your kids with poison and it's no longer recommended. Personally no one should but at least save the children!,' the post reads. A photo posted alongside the caption is a screenshot from the World Health Organization's website, with the words circled in red: 'Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.' The screen grab also shows the following paragraph with the words underlined in red: 'There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) Others have been spreading similar messages on social media about this alleged change in the WHO's stance on COVID-19 vaccines for children, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). The topic also dominated vaccine-related Google searches on June 22, according to Google Trends data. Mining the webpage The screen grab posted on Instagram was indeed taken directly from the WHO's webpage and the text had not been altered. The purpose of that specific webpage is to give the public advice on who should receive a COVID-19 vaccine. The webpage stated, 'Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.' However, this was not new guidance from the WHO. The organization first posted this guidance on April 8, according to our analysis of the webpage through the Wayback Machine, an internet archive service, and First Draft, a nonprofit group that analyzes misinformation on the web. When we reached out to the WHO on June 22 to ask officials about the webpage's wording and whether they had reversed their stance, a spokesperson sent the following statement: 'Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers. 'More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19. 'WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) has concluded that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is suitable for use by people aged 12 years and above. Children aged between 12 and 15 who are at high risk may be offered this vaccine alongside other priority groups. Vaccine trials for children are ongoing and WHO will update its recommendations when the evidence or epidemiological situation warrants a change in policy. 'It's important for children to continue to have the recommended childhood vaccines.' The WHO updated its webpage June 23, replacing the language, 'children should not be vaccinated for the moment,' with the precise language sent in the statement above. Jen Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at KFF, said she reached out to a WHO contact who told her this updated language was added to reflect the latest advice from the WHO's June 15 meeting of the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts, which said the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine can be given to those age 12 and older. The WHO's stance The WHO's chief scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, explained in a June 11 video why the WHO was not prioritizing COVID-19 vaccines for children. 'So, the reason that today, in June 2021, WHO is saying that vaccinating children is not a priority is because children, though they can get infected with COVID-19 and they can transmit the infection to others, they are at much lower risk of getting severe disease compared to older adults,' Swaminathan said. 'And that is why, when we started prioritizing people who should get the vaccination when there are limited supplies of vaccines available in the country, we recommend that we start with health care workers and front-line workers who are at very high risk of exposure to the infection. Also elderly, the people who have underlying illnesses that make them at high risk to develop severe disease.' Dr. Rachel Vreeman, director of the Arnhold Institute for Global Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, confirmed that the statements on WHO's webpage were focused on whom to prioritize most urgently in getting COVID-19 vaccines. 'They are not saying that children should not be vaccinated against COVID or that the vaccines currently approved for use in children 12 years old and above are not safe,' Vreeman wrote in an email. 'The WHO is saying that the global priority should be on getting more adults vaccinated, since older adults are at the highest risk of serious complications and death from COVID-19.' 'In the face of massive inequities in who has access to COVID-19 vaccines globally, the WHO advises that those at highest risk - older adults - be prioritized first,' Vreeman wrote. Recommendations of COVID-19 vaccines for children in the U.S. It's also important to consider that supplies of the COVID-19 vaccines are no longer limited in the U.S., as they are in other parts of the world. So, having to ration the vaccine for only health care workers or those who are older or at higher risk for severe disease does not apply here. Remember, the WHO is a global organization, so its recommendations need to be applicable to countries worldwide. In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that everyone age 12 and over should receive a COVID-19 vaccine. In the U.S., the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has been authorized for emergency use in children ages 12 through 18 and adults of all ages. The American Academy of Pediatrics also recommends that children age 12 and up receive a COVID-19 vaccine. So does Vreeman, who is a pediatrician. 'As a pediatrician in the United States, in a setting where the COVID-19 vaccine is widely available, I whole-heartedly recommend that children 12 years old and up receive the COVID-19 vaccination as soon as possible,' Vreeman wrote in an email. 'The data show that the vaccines are safe and effective for this age group, and we want to prevent the risks that COVID-19 does present to children.' | Our ruling An Instagram post and other posts across social media falsely claimed that the WHO recently reversed its stance on children receiving a COVID-19 vaccine because the vaccines were 'poison' and would be dangerous for children. The WHO first posted its guidance for children and COVID-19 vaccinations on April 8. That guidance did include the wording, 'Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.' But, that wording was a reflection of the WHO saying that children should not be prioritized for vaccinations over other groups because in many countries supplies of vaccine are limited and health care workers, front-line workers, the elderly and those with high-risk medical conditions should have first dibs. There's no evidence the WHO 'reversed' its position on childhood COVID-19 vaccination in the way the viral social media posts allege. The WHO updated its guidance on June 23 to reflect a meeting of one of its scientific advisory groups, which said the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine could be safely given to children ages 12 and up. But this came after those misleading posts first appeared. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION recently reversed its stance on children getting the Covid vaccine. | Contradiction | A social media post on Instagram claims that the World Health Organization recently flipped its policy recommendation about children receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. 'The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION recently reversed its stance on children getting the Covid vaccine. Sorry to all those dumb parents who rushed out to get their 12 year olds vaccinated. Oops you injected your kids with poison and it's no longer recommended. Personally no one should but at least save the children!,' the post reads. A photo posted alongside the caption is a screenshot from the World Health Organization's website, with the words circled in red: 'Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.' The screen grab also shows the following paragraph with the words underlined in red: 'There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) Others have been spreading similar messages on social media about this alleged change in the WHO's stance on COVID-19 vaccines for children, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). The topic also dominated vaccine-related Google searches on June 22, according to Google Trends data. Mining the webpage The screen grab posted on Instagram was indeed taken directly from the WHO's webpage and the text had not been altered. The purpose of that specific webpage is to give the public advice on who should receive a COVID-19 vaccine. The webpage stated, 'Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.' However, this was not new guidance from the WHO. The organization first posted this guidance on April 8, according to our analysis of the webpage through the Wayback Machine, an internet archive service, and First Draft, a nonprofit group that analyzes misinformation on the web. When we reached out to the WHO on June 22 to ask officials about the webpage's wording and whether they had reversed their stance, a spokesperson sent the following statement: 'Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers. 'More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19. 'WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) has concluded that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is suitable for use by people aged 12 years and above. Children aged between 12 and 15 who are at high risk may be offered this vaccine alongside other priority groups. Vaccine trials for children are ongoing and WHO will update its recommendations when the evidence or epidemiological situation warrants a change in policy. 'It's important for children to continue to have the recommended childhood vaccines.' The WHO updated its webpage June 23, replacing the language, 'children should not be vaccinated for the moment,' with the precise language sent in the statement above. Jen Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at KFF, said she reached out to a WHO contact who told her this updated language was added to reflect the latest advice from the WHO's June 15 meeting of the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts, which said the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine can be given to those age 12 and older. The WHO's stance The WHO's chief scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, explained in a June 11 video why the WHO was not prioritizing COVID-19 vaccines for children. 'So, the reason that today, in June 2021, WHO is saying that vaccinating children is not a priority is because children, though they can get infected with COVID-19 and they can transmit the infection to others, they are at much lower risk of getting severe disease compared to older adults,' Swaminathan said. 'And that is why, when we started prioritizing people who should get the vaccination when there are limited supplies of vaccines available in the country, we recommend that we start with health care workers and front-line workers who are at very high risk of exposure to the infection. Also elderly, the people who have underlying illnesses that make them at high risk to develop severe disease.' Dr. Rachel Vreeman, director of the Arnhold Institute for Global Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, confirmed that the statements on WHO's webpage were focused on whom to prioritize most urgently in getting COVID-19 vaccines. 'They are not saying that children should not be vaccinated against COVID or that the vaccines currently approved for use in children 12 years old and above are not safe,' Vreeman wrote in an email. 'The WHO is saying that the global priority should be on getting more adults vaccinated, since older adults are at the highest risk of serious complications and death from COVID-19.' 'In the face of massive inequities in who has access to COVID-19 vaccines globally, the WHO advises that those at highest risk - older adults - be prioritized first,' Vreeman wrote. Recommendations of COVID-19 vaccines for children in the U.S. It's also important to consider that supplies of the COVID-19 vaccines are no longer limited in the U.S., as they are in other parts of the world. So, having to ration the vaccine for only health care workers or those who are older or at higher risk for severe disease does not apply here. Remember, the WHO is a global organization, so its recommendations need to be applicable to countries worldwide. In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that everyone age 12 and over should receive a COVID-19 vaccine. In the U.S., the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has been authorized for emergency use in children ages 12 through 18 and adults of all ages. The American Academy of Pediatrics also recommends that children age 12 and up receive a COVID-19 vaccine. So does Vreeman, who is a pediatrician. 'As a pediatrician in the United States, in a setting where the COVID-19 vaccine is widely available, I whole-heartedly recommend that children 12 years old and up receive the COVID-19 vaccination as soon as possible,' Vreeman wrote in an email. 'The data show that the vaccines are safe and effective for this age group, and we want to prevent the risks that COVID-19 does present to children.' | Our ruling An Instagram post and other posts across social media falsely claimed that the WHO recently reversed its stance on children receiving a COVID-19 vaccine because the vaccines were 'poison' and would be dangerous for children. The WHO first posted its guidance for children and COVID-19 vaccinations on April 8. That guidance did include the wording, 'Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.' But, that wording was a reflection of the WHO saying that children should not be prioritized for vaccinations over other groups because in many countries supplies of vaccine are limited and health care workers, front-line workers, the elderly and those with high-risk medical conditions should have first dibs. There's no evidence the WHO 'reversed' its position on childhood COVID-19 vaccination in the way the viral social media posts allege. The WHO updated its guidance on June 23 to reflect a meeting of one of its scientific advisory groups, which said the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine could be safely given to children ages 12 and up. But this came after those misleading posts first appeared. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'For the World Health Organization, the international entity whose sole responsibility it is to alert the world of global pandemics like this, to miss this, is a huge problem. | Contradiction | Speaking on the 'Fox Across America' radio show, U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick accused global health officials of failing earlier this year to warn the world about the coming coronavirus pandemic. 'For the World Health Organization, the international entity whose sole responsibility it is to alert the world of global pandemics, to miss this, is a huge problem,' Fitzpatrick, a Republican, told radio host Jimmy Failla. We wondered whether Fitzpatrick's stinging criticism was fair and what exactly the WHO told the public about the coronavirus in the pandemic's earliest days. Fitzpatrick was referring to a Jan. 14 tweet from the WHO, which stated that 'preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.' A timeline of events on the WHO's website about its actions on Jan. 14 offers a different account of what the organization told the public that day, indicating deeper concern than what was reflected in the tweet. The timeline states that on that date, a WHO official noted in a press briefing that there 'may have been' limited human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus between family members and that there was 'a risk of a possible outbreak.' Nearly a week later, according to the timeline, WHO investigators visited Wuhan, the Chinese city where the virus originated, and learned that there was evidence of human-to-human transmission, a major development that contradicted the Chinese government claims cited in the organization's Jan. 14 tweet. Another week after that, the WHO's director-general declared the novel coronavirus outbreak a 'public health emergency of international concern,' a rare designation meant to convey the extraordinary and serious nature of an unfolding health crisis. On March 11, the WHO gave the coronavirus another ominous designation - global pandemic. Will Kiley, a spokesman for Fitzpatrick, said the two-month delay between the Jan. 14 tweet and the pandemic declaration justifies the congressman's criticism, especially given evidence the virus had spread beyond China as early as Jan. 20. The Jan. 14 tweet accurately reflects what Chinese officials told the WHO at the time - that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. But the group should have questioned the accuracy of China's claim before issuing the tweet, said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. He and other infectious-disease experts did. 'We didn't believe them,' Adalja said. 'It was clear to many who looked at the data that this virus wasn't containable.' A PolitiFact story on the WHO's response to the pandemic written after President Donald Trump announced the United States would halt its financial support for the group found no credible evidence of human-to-human transmission prior to mid-January. 'There were questions, but no solid confirmation,' Boston University global health researcher Davidson Hamer told PolitiFact in April. But by Jan. 20, there had already been 200 cases, three deaths and three countries impacted, Adalja noted in a Jan. 20 blog post on the coronavirus, citing a paper published a day earlier by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. It was not until Jan. 22 that the WHO acknowledged for the first time that there had been human-to-human transmission. Adalja added that the WHO was slow to declare the coronavirus a public health emergency of international concern, and very slow issuing the pandemic declaration. Still, he said, accusing the WHO of missing the pandemic altogether goes too far. 'When it comes to these declarations, there's a lot of politics and diplomacy at play,' Adalja said. Michael LeVasseur, an epidemiologist at Drexel University, also said he does not think the WHO missed the pandemic. 'I don't think anything was missed,' LeVasseur said. 'Missed implies that they weren't involved very early on, which they were.' Fitzpatrick also claimed that alerting the world to global pandemics is the WHO's 'sole responsibility.' But the group actually has a much broader mission to promote public health in parts of the world with limited access to health care. | Our ruling During a conservative talk radio interview, Fitzpatrick accused the WHO of missing the pandemic, citing a Jan. 14 tweet in which the organization reported Chinese assurances that there was no human-to-human transmission of the virus. Experts argue that the WHO was slow to acknowledge human-to-human transmission, declare the coronavirus a 'public health emergency of international concern,' and label it a pandemic. But the agency was actively gathering and disseminating information about the virus in the weeks prior to the official pandemic declaration, and it's possible to interpret public statements made during this time as cautious, not reckless. Saying the WHO missed the pandemic altogether goes too far. Also, Fitzpatrick's claim doesn't acknowledge the WHO's work promoting public health. For these reasons, we rate Fitzpatrick's claim Mostly False. | [
"104403-proof-39-0342212e14976684f7af434d568f6658.jpg"
]
|
'For the World Health Organization, the international entity whose sole responsibility it is to alert the world of global pandemics like this, to miss this, is a huge problem. | Contradiction | Speaking on the 'Fox Across America' radio show, U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick accused global health officials of failing earlier this year to warn the world about the coming coronavirus pandemic. 'For the World Health Organization, the international entity whose sole responsibility it is to alert the world of global pandemics, to miss this, is a huge problem,' Fitzpatrick, a Republican, told radio host Jimmy Failla. We wondered whether Fitzpatrick's stinging criticism was fair and what exactly the WHO told the public about the coronavirus in the pandemic's earliest days. Fitzpatrick was referring to a Jan. 14 tweet from the WHO, which stated that 'preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.' A timeline of events on the WHO's website about its actions on Jan. 14 offers a different account of what the organization told the public that day, indicating deeper concern than what was reflected in the tweet. The timeline states that on that date, a WHO official noted in a press briefing that there 'may have been' limited human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus between family members and that there was 'a risk of a possible outbreak.' Nearly a week later, according to the timeline, WHO investigators visited Wuhan, the Chinese city where the virus originated, and learned that there was evidence of human-to-human transmission, a major development that contradicted the Chinese government claims cited in the organization's Jan. 14 tweet. Another week after that, the WHO's director-general declared the novel coronavirus outbreak a 'public health emergency of international concern,' a rare designation meant to convey the extraordinary and serious nature of an unfolding health crisis. On March 11, the WHO gave the coronavirus another ominous designation - global pandemic. Will Kiley, a spokesman for Fitzpatrick, said the two-month delay between the Jan. 14 tweet and the pandemic declaration justifies the congressman's criticism, especially given evidence the virus had spread beyond China as early as Jan. 20. The Jan. 14 tweet accurately reflects what Chinese officials told the WHO at the time - that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. But the group should have questioned the accuracy of China's claim before issuing the tweet, said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. He and other infectious-disease experts did. 'We didn't believe them,' Adalja said. 'It was clear to many who looked at the data that this virus wasn't containable.' A PolitiFact story on the WHO's response to the pandemic written after President Donald Trump announced the United States would halt its financial support for the group found no credible evidence of human-to-human transmission prior to mid-January. 'There were questions, but no solid confirmation,' Boston University global health researcher Davidson Hamer told PolitiFact in April. But by Jan. 20, there had already been 200 cases, three deaths and three countries impacted, Adalja noted in a Jan. 20 blog post on the coronavirus, citing a paper published a day earlier by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. It was not until Jan. 22 that the WHO acknowledged for the first time that there had been human-to-human transmission. Adalja added that the WHO was slow to declare the coronavirus a public health emergency of international concern, and very slow issuing the pandemic declaration. Still, he said, accusing the WHO of missing the pandemic altogether goes too far. 'When it comes to these declarations, there's a lot of politics and diplomacy at play,' Adalja said. Michael LeVasseur, an epidemiologist at Drexel University, also said he does not think the WHO missed the pandemic. 'I don't think anything was missed,' LeVasseur said. 'Missed implies that they weren't involved very early on, which they were.' Fitzpatrick also claimed that alerting the world to global pandemics is the WHO's 'sole responsibility.' But the group actually has a much broader mission to promote public health in parts of the world with limited access to health care. | Our ruling During a conservative talk radio interview, Fitzpatrick accused the WHO of missing the pandemic, citing a Jan. 14 tweet in which the organization reported Chinese assurances that there was no human-to-human transmission of the virus. Experts argue that the WHO was slow to acknowledge human-to-human transmission, declare the coronavirus a 'public health emergency of international concern,' and label it a pandemic. But the agency was actively gathering and disseminating information about the virus in the weeks prior to the official pandemic declaration, and it's possible to interpret public statements made during this time as cautious, not reckless. Saying the WHO missed the pandemic altogether goes too far. Also, Fitzpatrick's claim doesn't acknowledge the WHO's work promoting public health. For these reasons, we rate Fitzpatrick's claim Mostly False. | [
"104403-proof-39-0342212e14976684f7af434d568f6658.jpg"
]
|
'For the World Health Organization, the international entity whose sole responsibility it is to alert the world of global pandemics like this, to miss this, is a huge problem. | Contradiction | Speaking on the 'Fox Across America' radio show, U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick accused global health officials of failing earlier this year to warn the world about the coming coronavirus pandemic. 'For the World Health Organization, the international entity whose sole responsibility it is to alert the world of global pandemics, to miss this, is a huge problem,' Fitzpatrick, a Republican, told radio host Jimmy Failla. We wondered whether Fitzpatrick's stinging criticism was fair and what exactly the WHO told the public about the coronavirus in the pandemic's earliest days. Fitzpatrick was referring to a Jan. 14 tweet from the WHO, which stated that 'preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.' A timeline of events on the WHO's website about its actions on Jan. 14 offers a different account of what the organization told the public that day, indicating deeper concern than what was reflected in the tweet. The timeline states that on that date, a WHO official noted in a press briefing that there 'may have been' limited human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus between family members and that there was 'a risk of a possible outbreak.' Nearly a week later, according to the timeline, WHO investigators visited Wuhan, the Chinese city where the virus originated, and learned that there was evidence of human-to-human transmission, a major development that contradicted the Chinese government claims cited in the organization's Jan. 14 tweet. Another week after that, the WHO's director-general declared the novel coronavirus outbreak a 'public health emergency of international concern,' a rare designation meant to convey the extraordinary and serious nature of an unfolding health crisis. On March 11, the WHO gave the coronavirus another ominous designation - global pandemic. Will Kiley, a spokesman for Fitzpatrick, said the two-month delay between the Jan. 14 tweet and the pandemic declaration justifies the congressman's criticism, especially given evidence the virus had spread beyond China as early as Jan. 20. The Jan. 14 tweet accurately reflects what Chinese officials told the WHO at the time - that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. But the group should have questioned the accuracy of China's claim before issuing the tweet, said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. He and other infectious-disease experts did. 'We didn't believe them,' Adalja said. 'It was clear to many who looked at the data that this virus wasn't containable.' A PolitiFact story on the WHO's response to the pandemic written after President Donald Trump announced the United States would halt its financial support for the group found no credible evidence of human-to-human transmission prior to mid-January. 'There were questions, but no solid confirmation,' Boston University global health researcher Davidson Hamer told PolitiFact in April. But by Jan. 20, there had already been 200 cases, three deaths and three countries impacted, Adalja noted in a Jan. 20 blog post on the coronavirus, citing a paper published a day earlier by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. It was not until Jan. 22 that the WHO acknowledged for the first time that there had been human-to-human transmission. Adalja added that the WHO was slow to declare the coronavirus a public health emergency of international concern, and very slow issuing the pandemic declaration. Still, he said, accusing the WHO of missing the pandemic altogether goes too far. 'When it comes to these declarations, there's a lot of politics and diplomacy at play,' Adalja said. Michael LeVasseur, an epidemiologist at Drexel University, also said he does not think the WHO missed the pandemic. 'I don't think anything was missed,' LeVasseur said. 'Missed implies that they weren't involved very early on, which they were.' Fitzpatrick also claimed that alerting the world to global pandemics is the WHO's 'sole responsibility.' But the group actually has a much broader mission to promote public health in parts of the world with limited access to health care. | Our ruling During a conservative talk radio interview, Fitzpatrick accused the WHO of missing the pandemic, citing a Jan. 14 tweet in which the organization reported Chinese assurances that there was no human-to-human transmission of the virus. Experts argue that the WHO was slow to acknowledge human-to-human transmission, declare the coronavirus a 'public health emergency of international concern,' and label it a pandemic. But the agency was actively gathering and disseminating information about the virus in the weeks prior to the official pandemic declaration, and it's possible to interpret public statements made during this time as cautious, not reckless. Saying the WHO missed the pandemic altogether goes too far. Also, Fitzpatrick's claim doesn't acknowledge the WHO's work promoting public health. For these reasons, we rate Fitzpatrick's claim Mostly False. | [
"104403-proof-39-0342212e14976684f7af434d568f6658.jpg"
]
|
Herd immunity is probably why California has far fewer COVID-19 deaths than New York. | Contradiction | There is no vaccine to protect against COVID-19. So, is it possible a naturally occurring 'herd immunity' has, in effect, inoculated much of California, keeping the number of the state's coronavirus deaths a fraction of those in New York? That's the claim of a lengthy Facebook post, titled 'CV-19 Hoax Update.' It starts with this: 'Do you wonder why CA only has 559 CV19 deaths compared to 7,067 deaths in NY? Welp, researchers at Stanford's School of Medicine suspect it's because CA had already developed 'herd immunity' to the virus. They're now conducting a study to find this out. Makes sense. ... Building 'herd immunity' is the only way to get rid of a virus when there is no vaccine.' The post also claims that California is a leading tourist destination for people from China and theorizes that the virus has been 'kicking around' California 'since October or November.' It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Herd immunity, also called 'herd protection,' is a real phenomenon. It's when the percentage of the population immune to a virus becomes so high that the virus virtually dies off. But experts, pointing to how relatively little testing is being done, say there is no evidence of herd immunity for COVID-19 anywhere, let alone just in California. New York deaths far higher The numbers of COVID-19 deaths cited in the April 10 Facebook post - 559 in California and 7,067 - were accurate. News reports at the time cited those figures from Johns Hopkins University. That means New York had more than 12 times as many coronavirus deaths, even though its population is only about one-half that of California. What is herd immunity? Think of herd immunity as being a situation in which so many people - above 50% to perhaps 70% - are immune to a virus that it essentially stops spreading. It occurs when enough people in a community become immune through vaccination and/or prior illness, making the spread of the disease from person to person unlikely, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology says. The theory is that once many people develop immunity, the virus will eventually stop spreading to people who haven't yet caught it. It's not easy to achieve. Based on testing, even hard-hit Wuhan, China, where the virus was first detected Dec. 31, 2019, isn't close to achieving herd immunity, the Wall Street Journal reported on April 16, 2020. And in the days after the Facebook post, California Gov. Gavin Newsom talked about herd immunity as an aspiration for his state, not as something that has spared it. The Stanford study The Facebook post argues that it makes sense that California would have herd immunity because so many people travel there from China. It alludes to a Stanford University study as evidence. That study, which tested for coronavirus antibodies among 3,300 people in Santa Clara County, Calif., on April 3 and 4, 2020, was aimed at determining how many people in the county had unknowingly been infected with the virus, but didn't become seriously sick. Newsom said the project would show 'how far away we are from herd immunity.' The study concluded that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases - an estimated 48,000 to 81,000 people were infected in the county by early April, 50 to 85 times more than the number of confirmed cases. That's likely due to several factors, including early spread, lack of systematic testing, and asymptomatic or lightly symptomatic cases that were previously undetected, the study said. But the study's findings are not evidence that California has herd immunity, Dr. David Hamer, an expert on infectious diseases and global health and medicine professor at Boston University, told PolitiFact. No evidence of herd immunity Experts told PolitiFact that, because relatively little COVID-19 testing has been done, there simply is no evidence of herd immunity for COVID-19. 'We just don't have the testing data yet to determine who is protected. So, we are still not there in terms of declaring herd immunity,' said Melissa Brown, professor of microbiology/immunology at Northwestern University. Stephen Morse, professor of epidemiology at Columbia University in New York, agreed. 'Since almost all of the testing is done only on sick (symptomatic) people, presumably due to limitations in testing capacity, and only a very few counties are testing more widely, we don't know the level of immunity in either California or New York,' he said. 'Therefore, we can't say anything about herd immunity, as we simply don't know.' While the federal and state governments are building up their testing capabilities, 'it's not clear how good all these tests are,' said Hamer. 'And we don't have a clearly defined test to tell whether a person has had the disease' and also has antibodies to protect from getting COVID-19 again. As a number of news reports have suggested, experts also told us that one explanation for California's lower death toll is that it adopted stay-at-home orders and other responses before New York did. | Our ruling A widely shared post on Facebook claims herd immunity is probably why California has far fewer COVID-19 deaths than New York. Experts say that with relatively little testing having been done, there is no evidence to indicate that herd immunity explains the large gap in coronavirus deaths in the two states. We rate the claim False. | [
"104413-proof-19-e5967c03053cbe818c143947de241856.jpg"
]
|
Herd immunity is probably why California has far fewer COVID-19 deaths than New York. | Contradiction | There is no vaccine to protect against COVID-19. So, is it possible a naturally occurring 'herd immunity' has, in effect, inoculated much of California, keeping the number of the state's coronavirus deaths a fraction of those in New York? That's the claim of a lengthy Facebook post, titled 'CV-19 Hoax Update.' It starts with this: 'Do you wonder why CA only has 559 CV19 deaths compared to 7,067 deaths in NY? Welp, researchers at Stanford's School of Medicine suspect it's because CA had already developed 'herd immunity' to the virus. They're now conducting a study to find this out. Makes sense. ... Building 'herd immunity' is the only way to get rid of a virus when there is no vaccine.' The post also claims that California is a leading tourist destination for people from China and theorizes that the virus has been 'kicking around' California 'since October or November.' It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Herd immunity, also called 'herd protection,' is a real phenomenon. It's when the percentage of the population immune to a virus becomes so high that the virus virtually dies off. But experts, pointing to how relatively little testing is being done, say there is no evidence of herd immunity for COVID-19 anywhere, let alone just in California. New York deaths far higher The numbers of COVID-19 deaths cited in the April 10 Facebook post - 559 in California and 7,067 - were accurate. News reports at the time cited those figures from Johns Hopkins University. That means New York had more than 12 times as many coronavirus deaths, even though its population is only about one-half that of California. What is herd immunity? Think of herd immunity as being a situation in which so many people - above 50% to perhaps 70% - are immune to a virus that it essentially stops spreading. It occurs when enough people in a community become immune through vaccination and/or prior illness, making the spread of the disease from person to person unlikely, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology says. The theory is that once many people develop immunity, the virus will eventually stop spreading to people who haven't yet caught it. It's not easy to achieve. Based on testing, even hard-hit Wuhan, China, where the virus was first detected Dec. 31, 2019, isn't close to achieving herd immunity, the Wall Street Journal reported on April 16, 2020. And in the days after the Facebook post, California Gov. Gavin Newsom talked about herd immunity as an aspiration for his state, not as something that has spared it. The Stanford study The Facebook post argues that it makes sense that California would have herd immunity because so many people travel there from China. It alludes to a Stanford University study as evidence. That study, which tested for coronavirus antibodies among 3,300 people in Santa Clara County, Calif., on April 3 and 4, 2020, was aimed at determining how many people in the county had unknowingly been infected with the virus, but didn't become seriously sick. Newsom said the project would show 'how far away we are from herd immunity.' The study concluded that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases - an estimated 48,000 to 81,000 people were infected in the county by early April, 50 to 85 times more than the number of confirmed cases. That's likely due to several factors, including early spread, lack of systematic testing, and asymptomatic or lightly symptomatic cases that were previously undetected, the study said. But the study's findings are not evidence that California has herd immunity, Dr. David Hamer, an expert on infectious diseases and global health and medicine professor at Boston University, told PolitiFact. No evidence of herd immunity Experts told PolitiFact that, because relatively little COVID-19 testing has been done, there simply is no evidence of herd immunity for COVID-19. 'We just don't have the testing data yet to determine who is protected. So, we are still not there in terms of declaring herd immunity,' said Melissa Brown, professor of microbiology/immunology at Northwestern University. Stephen Morse, professor of epidemiology at Columbia University in New York, agreed. 'Since almost all of the testing is done only on sick (symptomatic) people, presumably due to limitations in testing capacity, and only a very few counties are testing more widely, we don't know the level of immunity in either California or New York,' he said. 'Therefore, we can't say anything about herd immunity, as we simply don't know.' While the federal and state governments are building up their testing capabilities, 'it's not clear how good all these tests are,' said Hamer. 'And we don't have a clearly defined test to tell whether a person has had the disease' and also has antibodies to protect from getting COVID-19 again. As a number of news reports have suggested, experts also told us that one explanation for California's lower death toll is that it adopted stay-at-home orders and other responses before New York did. | Our ruling A widely shared post on Facebook claims herd immunity is probably why California has far fewer COVID-19 deaths than New York. Experts say that with relatively little testing having been done, there is no evidence to indicate that herd immunity explains the large gap in coronavirus deaths in the two states. We rate the claim False. | [
"104413-proof-19-e5967c03053cbe818c143947de241856.jpg"
]
|
Herd immunity is probably why California has far fewer COVID-19 deaths than New York. | Contradiction | There is no vaccine to protect against COVID-19. So, is it possible a naturally occurring 'herd immunity' has, in effect, inoculated much of California, keeping the number of the state's coronavirus deaths a fraction of those in New York? That's the claim of a lengthy Facebook post, titled 'CV-19 Hoax Update.' It starts with this: 'Do you wonder why CA only has 559 CV19 deaths compared to 7,067 deaths in NY? Welp, researchers at Stanford's School of Medicine suspect it's because CA had already developed 'herd immunity' to the virus. They're now conducting a study to find this out. Makes sense. ... Building 'herd immunity' is the only way to get rid of a virus when there is no vaccine.' The post also claims that California is a leading tourist destination for people from China and theorizes that the virus has been 'kicking around' California 'since October or November.' It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Herd immunity, also called 'herd protection,' is a real phenomenon. It's when the percentage of the population immune to a virus becomes so high that the virus virtually dies off. But experts, pointing to how relatively little testing is being done, say there is no evidence of herd immunity for COVID-19 anywhere, let alone just in California. New York deaths far higher The numbers of COVID-19 deaths cited in the April 10 Facebook post - 559 in California and 7,067 - were accurate. News reports at the time cited those figures from Johns Hopkins University. That means New York had more than 12 times as many coronavirus deaths, even though its population is only about one-half that of California. What is herd immunity? Think of herd immunity as being a situation in which so many people - above 50% to perhaps 70% - are immune to a virus that it essentially stops spreading. It occurs when enough people in a community become immune through vaccination and/or prior illness, making the spread of the disease from person to person unlikely, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology says. The theory is that once many people develop immunity, the virus will eventually stop spreading to people who haven't yet caught it. It's not easy to achieve. Based on testing, even hard-hit Wuhan, China, where the virus was first detected Dec. 31, 2019, isn't close to achieving herd immunity, the Wall Street Journal reported on April 16, 2020. And in the days after the Facebook post, California Gov. Gavin Newsom talked about herd immunity as an aspiration for his state, not as something that has spared it. The Stanford study The Facebook post argues that it makes sense that California would have herd immunity because so many people travel there from China. It alludes to a Stanford University study as evidence. That study, which tested for coronavirus antibodies among 3,300 people in Santa Clara County, Calif., on April 3 and 4, 2020, was aimed at determining how many people in the county had unknowingly been infected with the virus, but didn't become seriously sick. Newsom said the project would show 'how far away we are from herd immunity.' The study concluded that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases - an estimated 48,000 to 81,000 people were infected in the county by early April, 50 to 85 times more than the number of confirmed cases. That's likely due to several factors, including early spread, lack of systematic testing, and asymptomatic or lightly symptomatic cases that were previously undetected, the study said. But the study's findings are not evidence that California has herd immunity, Dr. David Hamer, an expert on infectious diseases and global health and medicine professor at Boston University, told PolitiFact. No evidence of herd immunity Experts told PolitiFact that, because relatively little COVID-19 testing has been done, there simply is no evidence of herd immunity for COVID-19. 'We just don't have the testing data yet to determine who is protected. So, we are still not there in terms of declaring herd immunity,' said Melissa Brown, professor of microbiology/immunology at Northwestern University. Stephen Morse, professor of epidemiology at Columbia University in New York, agreed. 'Since almost all of the testing is done only on sick (symptomatic) people, presumably due to limitations in testing capacity, and only a very few counties are testing more widely, we don't know the level of immunity in either California or New York,' he said. 'Therefore, we can't say anything about herd immunity, as we simply don't know.' While the federal and state governments are building up their testing capabilities, 'it's not clear how good all these tests are,' said Hamer. 'And we don't have a clearly defined test to tell whether a person has had the disease' and also has antibodies to protect from getting COVID-19 again. As a number of news reports have suggested, experts also told us that one explanation for California's lower death toll is that it adopted stay-at-home orders and other responses before New York did. | Our ruling A widely shared post on Facebook claims herd immunity is probably why California has far fewer COVID-19 deaths than New York. Experts say that with relatively little testing having been done, there is no evidence to indicate that herd immunity explains the large gap in coronavirus deaths in the two states. We rate the claim False. | [
"104413-proof-19-e5967c03053cbe818c143947de241856.jpg"
]
|
Says Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger 'faces espionage charges. | Contradiction | The telephone call President Donald Trump made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger - in which he implored Raffensperger to 'find' enough votes to overturn his defeat in Georgia - was part of Trump's attempt to remain in the White House. It led to calls for a criminal investigation and even for Trump's impeachment, with only weeks before his term ends and President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated. But not all of the backlash was aimed at Trump. The fact that the Jan. 2 call was recorded and leaked to the news media also spurred a claim that Raffensperger 'faces espionage charges.' The claim was made in a widely shared Facebook post that was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Legal experts told us it would not be illegal for anyone on either end of the call to record it, or to disseminate the recording. Furthermore, the conversation did not bear on sensitive national security matters covered by the federal Espionage Act. 'This is silly,' said University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck, whose specialties include national security and constitutional law. 'Not only is there no universe in which the conversation between Trump and Raffensperger included the kind of 'information relating to the national defense' that's covered by the Espionage Act, but the president himself publicly described the conversation' the next day in a tweet. 'There's nothing close to a crime here.' Fleshing out the call and the claim Raffensperger, a Republican, has maintained that Georgia's returns accurately reflected a Biden victory in the Nov. 3 election. Votes were counted three times, showing Biden won by nearly 12,000 votes. In the call, Trump told Raffensperger: 'All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.' The Jan. 4 Facebook post is from Conversation Controversy, which is identified as a media user on Facebook. It includes a 2.5-minute video narrated by Doug TenNapel, who is a graphic novelist, video game designer and a former writer for the conservative website Breitbart. In the video, TenNapel doesn't mention espionage, but cites a Jan. 4 article by the Gateway Pundit, a conservative website, that does. The article references a Jan. 3 tweet by Jack Posobiec, a reporter for One America News Network, a conservative cable news service. The tweet, which alludes to the Washington Post story that revealed the telephone call, claimed that the White House is 'planning to refer Brad Raffensperger WaPo leak to Secret Service for investigation under national security grounds of the Espionage Act.' Neither the article nor the tweet cites any evidence that Raffensperger is facing espionage charges. The White House, the Secret Service and TenNapel didn't reply to our requests for information. As for how the recording was leaked, the Post and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution both reported that they obtained the recording the day after the phone conversation, but did not say how they obtained it. Raffensperger's office did not respond to our requests for comment. Vladeck and Asha Rangappa, a Yale University national security law instructor and former FBI agent, said that both Georgia and Washington, D.C., are one-party consent jurisdictions - meaning it is legal to record, and to distribute recordings, made with only one party's consent. Raffensperger has indicated that the recording was released because Trump's tweet 'broke privacy' and contained false information. Trump's tweet said that in the call, Raffensperger was 'unwilling, or unable, to answer questions' about voter fraud in Georgia. 'If President Trump wouldn't have tweeted anything and would have stayed silent, we would have stayed silent, as well,' Raffensperger said in a TV interview. Legal experts see no basis for espionage charges Vladeck knocked down Posobiec's report on Twitter. He and Rangappa said the FBI, not the Secret Service, investigates violations of the Espionage Act. Given that the phone conversation had to do with counting votes in Georgia, 'to me, it's absurd on its face' that disclosing what was said could violate the Espionage Act, Rangappa said. The Espionage Act 'covers certain unauthorized disclosures of 'national defense' information,' said Columbia University law professor David Pozen. 'Even the most expansive definitions of this term that I've ever seen proposed would not cover what happened here. The idea that Raffensperger should face Espionage Act charges is absurd and outrageous.' | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed Raffensperger 'faces espionage charges.' There is no evidence for the claim. Moreover, legal experts said it is not illegal for Raffensperger or anyone on the call between him and Trump to have recorded the call, or to have shared the recording. And disclosing discussions about ballot counting in Georgia do not involve sensitive national defense information that would invoke the Espionage Act, the experts said. We rate the claim False. | [
"104442-proof-18-f40ace9dac01543e8f219b7510b7b28c.jpg"
]
|
Says Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger 'faces espionage charges. | Contradiction | The telephone call President Donald Trump made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger - in which he implored Raffensperger to 'find' enough votes to overturn his defeat in Georgia - was part of Trump's attempt to remain in the White House. It led to calls for a criminal investigation and even for Trump's impeachment, with only weeks before his term ends and President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated. But not all of the backlash was aimed at Trump. The fact that the Jan. 2 call was recorded and leaked to the news media also spurred a claim that Raffensperger 'faces espionage charges.' The claim was made in a widely shared Facebook post that was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Legal experts told us it would not be illegal for anyone on either end of the call to record it, or to disseminate the recording. Furthermore, the conversation did not bear on sensitive national security matters covered by the federal Espionage Act. 'This is silly,' said University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck, whose specialties include national security and constitutional law. 'Not only is there no universe in which the conversation between Trump and Raffensperger included the kind of 'information relating to the national defense' that's covered by the Espionage Act, but the president himself publicly described the conversation' the next day in a tweet. 'There's nothing close to a crime here.' Fleshing out the call and the claim Raffensperger, a Republican, has maintained that Georgia's returns accurately reflected a Biden victory in the Nov. 3 election. Votes were counted three times, showing Biden won by nearly 12,000 votes. In the call, Trump told Raffensperger: 'All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.' The Jan. 4 Facebook post is from Conversation Controversy, which is identified as a media user on Facebook. It includes a 2.5-minute video narrated by Doug TenNapel, who is a graphic novelist, video game designer and a former writer for the conservative website Breitbart. In the video, TenNapel doesn't mention espionage, but cites a Jan. 4 article by the Gateway Pundit, a conservative website, that does. The article references a Jan. 3 tweet by Jack Posobiec, a reporter for One America News Network, a conservative cable news service. The tweet, which alludes to the Washington Post story that revealed the telephone call, claimed that the White House is 'planning to refer Brad Raffensperger WaPo leak to Secret Service for investigation under national security grounds of the Espionage Act.' Neither the article nor the tweet cites any evidence that Raffensperger is facing espionage charges. The White House, the Secret Service and TenNapel didn't reply to our requests for information. As for how the recording was leaked, the Post and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution both reported that they obtained the recording the day after the phone conversation, but did not say how they obtained it. Raffensperger's office did not respond to our requests for comment. Vladeck and Asha Rangappa, a Yale University national security law instructor and former FBI agent, said that both Georgia and Washington, D.C., are one-party consent jurisdictions - meaning it is legal to record, and to distribute recordings, made with only one party's consent. Raffensperger has indicated that the recording was released because Trump's tweet 'broke privacy' and contained false information. Trump's tweet said that in the call, Raffensperger was 'unwilling, or unable, to answer questions' about voter fraud in Georgia. 'If President Trump wouldn't have tweeted anything and would have stayed silent, we would have stayed silent, as well,' Raffensperger said in a TV interview. Legal experts see no basis for espionage charges Vladeck knocked down Posobiec's report on Twitter. He and Rangappa said the FBI, not the Secret Service, investigates violations of the Espionage Act. Given that the phone conversation had to do with counting votes in Georgia, 'to me, it's absurd on its face' that disclosing what was said could violate the Espionage Act, Rangappa said. The Espionage Act 'covers certain unauthorized disclosures of 'national defense' information,' said Columbia University law professor David Pozen. 'Even the most expansive definitions of this term that I've ever seen proposed would not cover what happened here. The idea that Raffensperger should face Espionage Act charges is absurd and outrageous.' | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed Raffensperger 'faces espionage charges.' There is no evidence for the claim. Moreover, legal experts said it is not illegal for Raffensperger or anyone on the call between him and Trump to have recorded the call, or to have shared the recording. And disclosing discussions about ballot counting in Georgia do not involve sensitive national defense information that would invoke the Espionage Act, the experts said. We rate the claim False. | [
"104442-proof-18-f40ace9dac01543e8f219b7510b7b28c.jpg"
]
|
'CNN is at it again. Putting a black guy's head on a lily white dude to push an agenda. | Contradiction | Two images being shared on social media show a man lying face down on the ground with a police officer crouched over him. The man's head is circled, and so are his legs. The pictures are authentic. But the description of them is not. 'CNN is at it again,' the post says. 'Putting a black guy's head on a lily white dude to push an agenda.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) CNN published a similar image of the man and officer alongside a story about a stabbing attack at the Arndale Centre mall in Manchester, England, on Oct. 11, 2019. The caption says: 'In this image taken from mobile phone footage, police arrest a man outside the Arndale Center.' It seems the footage came from this Twitter account, which tweeted it at the Manchester Evening News that same day, saying it showed a 'guy being held by police with a tazer outside the arndale.' The skin tones in the video are the same as the skin tones in the images being shared on Facebook. Many news organizations replied to the tweet seeking permission to use it with their coverage of the stabbing attack, including CNN, NBC, The Independent, the European Broadcasting Union, BBC and RT, among others. In the United States, several networks covered the incident, including Fox News, which also published a similar image as appears in the Facebook post. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Says a CNN broadcast shows '400,000 votes just disappeared' in the California recall election. | Contradiction | CNN among other news organizations projected that California Gov. Gavin Newsom will hold onto his job after an election to decide whether he should be recalled. According to unofficial election results posted on California's secretary of state website, nearly 64% of voters opposed recalling Newsom compared with about 36% who voted yes. Those numbers will change before the results are certified on Oct. 22 as more mail-in and provisional ballots are tallied, but Newsom's lead wasn't in question. Still, unfounded claims of election fraud loomed as people headed to the polls on Sept. 14. In one video from that evening that's being shared on social media, a man recorded his television, which was tuned to CNN. The screen shows a graphic that says: 'Should Gov. Newsom be recalled?' The graphic then reflected that 4,530,002 'no' votes had been counted - 67.1% of the votes tallied by that point - and 2,225,915 'yes' votes had been counted, or 32.9%. In the bottom right corner of the graphic it says '52% estimated vote,' meaning that these totals only account for about half of all ballots cast in the race. The man recording the screen then zooms in on a similar, smaller graphic with the same information in the bottom right corner of the screen. '2.25 - watch,' he says. The graphic then changes and some of the numbers change. The 'yes' votes go from 2,225,915 to 1,874,206, and from 32.9% of the vote to 29.3% of the vote. The number of 'no' votes, meanwhile, don't change, and the percentage of 'no' votes increases to 70.7%. The estimated vote changed from 52% to 49%. '1.874,' the man says. 'Where did they go? 400,000 votes just disappeared? Wow.' The man wasn't seeing things, and the recording of the CNN broadcast is authentic. But the polling firm that provides election data to CNN and other news organizations told us that what that man witnessed was a mistake being corrected. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) CNN declined to comment for this story. But it got those numbers from Edison Research, a polling firm that provides elections data to CNN among other news organizations. Rob Farbman, the firm's executive vice president, told PolitiFact that Edison relies on different sources including state data and reporters hired to collect vote tallies in person at county elections offices. A reporter hired by Edison who was stationed at an office in Santa Clara County called the firm and accidentally said that about 350,000 votes there were in favor of recalling Newsom. In reality, that number reflected all tallied votes in that county, no and yes votes combined. The mistake resulted in CNN wrongly reporting that there were about 350,000 extra votes to recall Newsom. 'This error was entered at 11:19pm ET and corrected 2 minutes later at 11:21pm ET,' Farbman said in an email. The vote 'drop' was taking out the error and putting in the vote being reported by Santa Clara County.' The estimated vote changed from 52% to 49% because when the correction was made, 'the total number of votes tabulated declined by 350,000 votes and estimated percent of the total vote currently tabulated declined,' he said. But those votes weren't surreptitiously scrubbed from the election. They were mistakenly entered, and then removed. We rate claims that these votes disappeared fraudulently False. | We rate claims that these votes disappeared fraudulently False. | []
|
Says a CNN broadcast shows '400,000 votes just disappeared' in the California recall election. | Contradiction | CNN among other news organizations projected that California Gov. Gavin Newsom will hold onto his job after an election to decide whether he should be recalled. According to unofficial election results posted on California's secretary of state website, nearly 64% of voters opposed recalling Newsom compared with about 36% who voted yes. Those numbers will change before the results are certified on Oct. 22 as more mail-in and provisional ballots are tallied, but Newsom's lead wasn't in question. Still, unfounded claims of election fraud loomed as people headed to the polls on Sept. 14. In one video from that evening that's being shared on social media, a man recorded his television, which was tuned to CNN. The screen shows a graphic that says: 'Should Gov. Newsom be recalled?' The graphic then reflected that 4,530,002 'no' votes had been counted - 67.1% of the votes tallied by that point - and 2,225,915 'yes' votes had been counted, or 32.9%. In the bottom right corner of the graphic it says '52% estimated vote,' meaning that these totals only account for about half of all ballots cast in the race. The man recording the screen then zooms in on a similar, smaller graphic with the same information in the bottom right corner of the screen. '2.25 - watch,' he says. The graphic then changes and some of the numbers change. The 'yes' votes go from 2,225,915 to 1,874,206, and from 32.9% of the vote to 29.3% of the vote. The number of 'no' votes, meanwhile, don't change, and the percentage of 'no' votes increases to 70.7%. The estimated vote changed from 52% to 49%. '1.874,' the man says. 'Where did they go? 400,000 votes just disappeared? Wow.' The man wasn't seeing things, and the recording of the CNN broadcast is authentic. But the polling firm that provides election data to CNN and other news organizations told us that what that man witnessed was a mistake being corrected. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) CNN declined to comment for this story. But it got those numbers from Edison Research, a polling firm that provides elections data to CNN among other news organizations. Rob Farbman, the firm's executive vice president, told PolitiFact that Edison relies on different sources including state data and reporters hired to collect vote tallies in person at county elections offices. A reporter hired by Edison who was stationed at an office in Santa Clara County called the firm and accidentally said that about 350,000 votes there were in favor of recalling Newsom. In reality, that number reflected all tallied votes in that county, no and yes votes combined. The mistake resulted in CNN wrongly reporting that there were about 350,000 extra votes to recall Newsom. 'This error was entered at 11:19pm ET and corrected 2 minutes later at 11:21pm ET,' Farbman said in an email. The vote 'drop' was taking out the error and putting in the vote being reported by Santa Clara County.' The estimated vote changed from 52% to 49% because when the correction was made, 'the total number of votes tabulated declined by 350,000 votes and estimated percent of the total vote currently tabulated declined,' he said. But those votes weren't surreptitiously scrubbed from the election. They were mistakenly entered, and then removed. We rate claims that these votes disappeared fraudulently False. | We rate claims that these votes disappeared fraudulently False. | []
|
The longest filibuster in U.S. history was 75 days and 'took place in 1964, when Democrats tried to block the Civil Rights Act. | Contradiction | When lawmakers want to delay legislation from moving forward, they filibuster. In simple terms, that means they talk for a long time to hold up the bill. On social media, some users are presenting mangled history about the filibuster to take a swipe at Democrats over civil rights. The posts, which have appeared on Facebook and Twitter, say: 'The longest filibuster in U.S. history was 75 days. It took place in 1964, when Democrats tried to block the Civil Rights Act. It'd be a shame if this went viral.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There was a lengthy fight in Washington before the Civil Rights Act was signed into law, but the post gets some aspects of history wrong and lumps all Democrats together in opposition. Democrats introduced the legislation and led its passage. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and provided protection of voting rights, banned discrimination in public facilities and established equal employment opportunity. Getting it passed wasn't easy. The longest continuous debate in U.S. Senate history was brought on by a group of Southern Democrats over the legislation. But many northern Democrats supported the bill, and the filibuster lasted 60 days, not 75, according to the Senate's website. Robert Gordon, a legal historian and law professor at Stanford University, told PolitiFact the post's claim is misleading and pointed to Democratic support of the bill. 'The nay Democratic votes were all from the Southern bloc of the party. The former Confederate states had been effectively one-party states since Reconstruction,' Gordon said. 'The Civil Rights Act was promoted by a former Southern Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson of Texas, and passed with the help of Northern Democrats and 27 Republicans.' Democrats introduced, led passage of the Civil right Act Shortly after President John F. Kennedy publicly called for a robust Civil Rights Act, Emmanuel Celler, a New York Democrat, introduced the House version of the bill on June 19, 1963, according to an article in the Smithsonian Magazine. Following Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson strongly pushed for the measure and addressed a joint session in Congress days later, urging members to pass the bill. The House passed the measure in February 1964. Once it hit the Senate, it was met with opposition from a group of southern Democratic senators. The group, known as 'the Southern bloc' of the party, represented former Confederate states and was predominantly led by West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. At the time, a two-thirds vote, or 67 senators, were required to invoke cloture and end the debate. That happened on June 10, when a coalition of 27 Republicans and 44 Democrats ended the filibuster with a 71-29 vote. On June 12, 1964, 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted for the legislation, and 21 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted against. It was signed into law July 2, 1964. | Our ruling Social media posts claim that Democrats hold the longest filibuster in U.S. history, which lasted 75 days, when they blocked the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's true that Democrats hold the longest filibuster in Senate history over the legislation, but it was led by a group of southern Democrats, not all Democrats, and lasted 60 days, not 75. Many Democrats from non-Southern states supported the bill and helped end the debate. Democrats wrote the bill and Democrats led its passage in the Senate. The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | []
|
The longest filibuster in U.S. history was 75 days and 'took place in 1964, when Democrats tried to block the Civil Rights Act. | Contradiction | When lawmakers want to delay legislation from moving forward, they filibuster. In simple terms, that means they talk for a long time to hold up the bill. On social media, some users are presenting mangled history about the filibuster to take a swipe at Democrats over civil rights. The posts, which have appeared on Facebook and Twitter, say: 'The longest filibuster in U.S. history was 75 days. It took place in 1964, when Democrats tried to block the Civil Rights Act. It'd be a shame if this went viral.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There was a lengthy fight in Washington before the Civil Rights Act was signed into law, but the post gets some aspects of history wrong and lumps all Democrats together in opposition. Democrats introduced the legislation and led its passage. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and provided protection of voting rights, banned discrimination in public facilities and established equal employment opportunity. Getting it passed wasn't easy. The longest continuous debate in U.S. Senate history was brought on by a group of Southern Democrats over the legislation. But many northern Democrats supported the bill, and the filibuster lasted 60 days, not 75, according to the Senate's website. Robert Gordon, a legal historian and law professor at Stanford University, told PolitiFact the post's claim is misleading and pointed to Democratic support of the bill. 'The nay Democratic votes were all from the Southern bloc of the party. The former Confederate states had been effectively one-party states since Reconstruction,' Gordon said. 'The Civil Rights Act was promoted by a former Southern Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson of Texas, and passed with the help of Northern Democrats and 27 Republicans.' Democrats introduced, led passage of the Civil right Act Shortly after President John F. Kennedy publicly called for a robust Civil Rights Act, Emmanuel Celler, a New York Democrat, introduced the House version of the bill on June 19, 1963, according to an article in the Smithsonian Magazine. Following Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson strongly pushed for the measure and addressed a joint session in Congress days later, urging members to pass the bill. The House passed the measure in February 1964. Once it hit the Senate, it was met with opposition from a group of southern Democratic senators. The group, known as 'the Southern bloc' of the party, represented former Confederate states and was predominantly led by West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. At the time, a two-thirds vote, or 67 senators, were required to invoke cloture and end the debate. That happened on June 10, when a coalition of 27 Republicans and 44 Democrats ended the filibuster with a 71-29 vote. On June 12, 1964, 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted for the legislation, and 21 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted against. It was signed into law July 2, 1964. | Our ruling Social media posts claim that Democrats hold the longest filibuster in U.S. history, which lasted 75 days, when they blocked the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's true that Democrats hold the longest filibuster in Senate history over the legislation, but it was led by a group of southern Democrats, not all Democrats, and lasted 60 days, not 75. Many Democrats from non-Southern states supported the bill and helped end the debate. Democrats wrote the bill and Democrats led its passage in the Senate. The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | []
|
The longest filibuster in U.S. history was 75 days and 'took place in 1964, when Democrats tried to block the Civil Rights Act. | Contradiction | When lawmakers want to delay legislation from moving forward, they filibuster. In simple terms, that means they talk for a long time to hold up the bill. On social media, some users are presenting mangled history about the filibuster to take a swipe at Democrats over civil rights. The posts, which have appeared on Facebook and Twitter, say: 'The longest filibuster in U.S. history was 75 days. It took place in 1964, when Democrats tried to block the Civil Rights Act. It'd be a shame if this went viral.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There was a lengthy fight in Washington before the Civil Rights Act was signed into law, but the post gets some aspects of history wrong and lumps all Democrats together in opposition. Democrats introduced the legislation and led its passage. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and provided protection of voting rights, banned discrimination in public facilities and established equal employment opportunity. Getting it passed wasn't easy. The longest continuous debate in U.S. Senate history was brought on by a group of Southern Democrats over the legislation. But many northern Democrats supported the bill, and the filibuster lasted 60 days, not 75, according to the Senate's website. Robert Gordon, a legal historian and law professor at Stanford University, told PolitiFact the post's claim is misleading and pointed to Democratic support of the bill. 'The nay Democratic votes were all from the Southern bloc of the party. The former Confederate states had been effectively one-party states since Reconstruction,' Gordon said. 'The Civil Rights Act was promoted by a former Southern Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson of Texas, and passed with the help of Northern Democrats and 27 Republicans.' Democrats introduced, led passage of the Civil right Act Shortly after President John F. Kennedy publicly called for a robust Civil Rights Act, Emmanuel Celler, a New York Democrat, introduced the House version of the bill on June 19, 1963, according to an article in the Smithsonian Magazine. Following Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson strongly pushed for the measure and addressed a joint session in Congress days later, urging members to pass the bill. The House passed the measure in February 1964. Once it hit the Senate, it was met with opposition from a group of southern Democratic senators. The group, known as 'the Southern bloc' of the party, represented former Confederate states and was predominantly led by West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. At the time, a two-thirds vote, or 67 senators, were required to invoke cloture and end the debate. That happened on June 10, when a coalition of 27 Republicans and 44 Democrats ended the filibuster with a 71-29 vote. On June 12, 1964, 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted for the legislation, and 21 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted against. It was signed into law July 2, 1964. | Our ruling Social media posts claim that Democrats hold the longest filibuster in U.S. history, which lasted 75 days, when they blocked the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's true that Democrats hold the longest filibuster in Senate history over the legislation, but it was led by a group of southern Democrats, not all Democrats, and lasted 60 days, not 75. Many Democrats from non-Southern states supported the bill and helped end the debate. Democrats wrote the bill and Democrats led its passage in the Senate. The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | []
|
Republican election challengers were unfairly barred from observing absentee ballot processing and counting in Detroit. | Contradiction | On Nov. 4, chaos erupted at Detroit's TCF Center, the convention hall where election workers processed and counted the city's absentee ballots, as dozens of partisan poll monitors clamored to get into the counting area. They banged on the doors and windows, demanding that election workers stop the count until they could enter. Some Facebook posts aired claims that Republican challengers were improperly barred from observing the process. One post claimed, 'The Democrats are locking us out and not letting us in to supervise the ballot counting at the TCF Center in downtown Detroit!' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) President Donald Trump, whose campaign filed an unsuccessful lawsuit to stop the counting, repeated that claim in a speech Nov. 5, saying, 'Our campaign has been denied access to observe any counting in Detroit.' That's not true, and many news networks halted their broadcasts of the president's speech because he was spreading misinformation. The Facebook claim isn't true either. A certain number of challengers, Democratic and Republican, were prohibited from entering TCF, but that's because the number of challengers already observing the process had reached the limit allowed under state law, Detroit election officials said. Over 100 Republican challengers remained inside the room where absentee ballots were being counted. What happened at TCF Detroit election workers gathered at TCF on Election Day to begin counting the absentee ballots. Chris Thomas, special adviser to Detroit City Clerk Janice Winfrey this election, said then that the process was going smoothly. Thomas noted that there was not 'wide scale challenging' of ballots by the Republican and Democratic challengers. Michigan allows election challengers appointed by political parties and interest groups, as well as poll watchers, to observe the election process, including the counting. While credentialed election challengers at a polling place can question a voter's eligibility to vote, poll watchers cannot. Detroit established 134 absent-voter counting boards to process and count ballots for the city's 503 precincts at a central location. Under state law, one challenger per political party or sponsoring organization can observe each absent voter counting board. But on Wednesday, the number of challengers observing the count exceeded the allowed limit. At one point, there were more than 570 challengers in the counting room, the Detroit Free Press reported, including 227 Republican challengers. In a statement shared Wednesday, Lawrence Garcia, Detroit's lead attorney, explained what happened next. 'We were well over the 134 maximum. In the haste of doing business, nobody noticed that until it was over 200 for each party, and at that point, we said, we better stop admitting people until some people leave, and we're under the 134 number.' When additional challengers tried to enter, they were denied access. Election officials at TCF told those challengers that they couldn't enter the counting area because the room was at capacity. An uproar followed. The challengers gathered outside began pounding on the doors and windows, demanding that they be let back in and that election workers stop counting ballots. Republican challengers claimed they were being unfairly kept out, but election officials barred both Republican and Democratic challengers from reentering. 'Those are the rules,' Garcia said in his Wednesday statement, referring to the limits on challengers. 'We have to play by them.' Election workers counting ballots asked security to place paper over the windows because they felt intimidated by Republican challengers banging on the doors and windows. | Our ruling Facebook users claimed that Republican challengers were unfairly barred from monitoring the counting of absentee ballots in Detroit. Hundreds of Democratic and Republican challengers were present in the counting area. At one point on Nov. 5, the number exceeded the legal limit, so election officials barred some challengers, both Republican and Democratic, from reentering TCF after they left. Other challengers were allowed to stay and observe the process. We rate the claim False. Tresa Baldas, Kristen Jordan Shamus, Niraj Warikoo and Evan Petzold contributed to this report. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"104475-proof-23-ddcf65e076964f2c1433b51bf92ab080.jpg"
]
|
Republican election challengers were unfairly barred from observing absentee ballot processing and counting in Detroit. | Contradiction | On Nov. 4, chaos erupted at Detroit's TCF Center, the convention hall where election workers processed and counted the city's absentee ballots, as dozens of partisan poll monitors clamored to get into the counting area. They banged on the doors and windows, demanding that election workers stop the count until they could enter. Some Facebook posts aired claims that Republican challengers were improperly barred from observing the process. One post claimed, 'The Democrats are locking us out and not letting us in to supervise the ballot counting at the TCF Center in downtown Detroit!' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) President Donald Trump, whose campaign filed an unsuccessful lawsuit to stop the counting, repeated that claim in a speech Nov. 5, saying, 'Our campaign has been denied access to observe any counting in Detroit.' That's not true, and many news networks halted their broadcasts of the president's speech because he was spreading misinformation. The Facebook claim isn't true either. A certain number of challengers, Democratic and Republican, were prohibited from entering TCF, but that's because the number of challengers already observing the process had reached the limit allowed under state law, Detroit election officials said. Over 100 Republican challengers remained inside the room where absentee ballots were being counted. What happened at TCF Detroit election workers gathered at TCF on Election Day to begin counting the absentee ballots. Chris Thomas, special adviser to Detroit City Clerk Janice Winfrey this election, said then that the process was going smoothly. Thomas noted that there was not 'wide scale challenging' of ballots by the Republican and Democratic challengers. Michigan allows election challengers appointed by political parties and interest groups, as well as poll watchers, to observe the election process, including the counting. While credentialed election challengers at a polling place can question a voter's eligibility to vote, poll watchers cannot. Detroit established 134 absent-voter counting boards to process and count ballots for the city's 503 precincts at a central location. Under state law, one challenger per political party or sponsoring organization can observe each absent voter counting board. But on Wednesday, the number of challengers observing the count exceeded the allowed limit. At one point, there were more than 570 challengers in the counting room, the Detroit Free Press reported, including 227 Republican challengers. In a statement shared Wednesday, Lawrence Garcia, Detroit's lead attorney, explained what happened next. 'We were well over the 134 maximum. In the haste of doing business, nobody noticed that until it was over 200 for each party, and at that point, we said, we better stop admitting people until some people leave, and we're under the 134 number.' When additional challengers tried to enter, they were denied access. Election officials at TCF told those challengers that they couldn't enter the counting area because the room was at capacity. An uproar followed. The challengers gathered outside began pounding on the doors and windows, demanding that they be let back in and that election workers stop counting ballots. Republican challengers claimed they were being unfairly kept out, but election officials barred both Republican and Democratic challengers from reentering. 'Those are the rules,' Garcia said in his Wednesday statement, referring to the limits on challengers. 'We have to play by them.' Election workers counting ballots asked security to place paper over the windows because they felt intimidated by Republican challengers banging on the doors and windows. | Our ruling Facebook users claimed that Republican challengers were unfairly barred from monitoring the counting of absentee ballots in Detroit. Hundreds of Democratic and Republican challengers were present in the counting area. At one point on Nov. 5, the number exceeded the legal limit, so election officials barred some challengers, both Republican and Democratic, from reentering TCF after they left. Other challengers were allowed to stay and observe the process. We rate the claim False. Tresa Baldas, Kristen Jordan Shamus, Niraj Warikoo and Evan Petzold contributed to this report. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"104475-proof-23-ddcf65e076964f2c1433b51bf92ab080.jpg"
]
|
'We actually have this critical race theory moved into all our schools in Virginia. | Contradiction | Republican gubernatorial nominee Glenn Youngkin says critical race theory has become pervasive in Virginia schools and must be expunged. 'We actually have this critical race theory moved into all of our schools in Virginia,' he said during a July 9 campaign speech in rural Wytheville. 'We're actually watching this critical race theory move its way into all schools across Virginia,' he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on July 23. 'Critical race theory has moved into our school system and we have to remove it,' he told Fox News on Aug. 5. Critical race theory - a broad set of ideas about systemic bias and privilege - has become a political flashpoint across the nation. It holds that racism is part of a broader pattern in America: It is woven into laws, and it shows up in who gets a job interview, the sort of home loans people are offered, how they are treated by police, and other facets of daily life large and small. There is a movement by some educators to incorporate critical race theory into instruction, particularly in U.S. history which they say has been taught from a white vantage point. A central complaint of critical race theory is that, because it focuses on race, the approach is itself racist. Critics say it presents solely a negative picture of the United States and is designed to make students feel bad about their country. At least 12 states have banned critical race theory teaching, and bills barring such instruction have been introduced in at least 15 states. The Virginia General Assembly has not considered a bill to ban critical race theory from schools. But the topic has roused emotions in a number of localities and become a key issue in Youngkin's campaign. So we fact-checked his claim that 'critical race theory has moved into all our schools in Virginia,' and found it to be highly exaggerated. Is critical race theory taught throughout Virginia? Critical race theory is not mentioned in Virginia's Standards of Learning, which set baselines of knowledge students are expected to master in different grades and subjects. Although the standards are set by the state Board of Education, local school systems set the teaching curricula to reach those goals. So there is no statewide count of how many schools teach critical race theory. There's no specific definition of critical race theory curricula that would allow an objective count. Contrary to Youngkin's statement, however, a number of localities have issued statements saying they do not teach critical race theory. Here's a sampling: Youngkin's proof We asked Youngkin's campaign to back up his statement that critical race theory has 'moved into all of our schools in Virginia.' Only a smattering of the evidence it offered pointed to individual school systems or schools. Most of it shows that Virginia educators have discussed - but not endorsed - the theory at seminars and have been encouraged to read about it. The Virginia Department of Education holds an annual two-day seminar on improving equity in schools. Equity, as defined by the department, is not a teaching theory. It's 'a commitment to eliminating the predictability of student outcomes based on race, gender, ZIP code, ability, socio-economic status, and/or languages spoken at home,' said Ken Blackstone, executive communications director. The goal, in simple terms, is to make schools more 'welcoming' and ensure fair policies. Youngkin's campaign says critical race theory has been promoted at these conferences. It notes that: In 2015, there was a presentation on critical race theory at a two-day conference on improving school disciplinary practices in Virginia. Brenda L. Walker, an education professor at the University of Central Florida, urged educators to 'embrace critical race theory' among other recommendations. Gov. Ralph Northam, in closing remarks at the 2020 conference, said Virginia needs to 'build anti-racist school communities.' Speakers at the 2021 conference included Wendi Manuel-Scott, who teaches critical race theory at George Mason University; and Muhammad Khalifa of Ohio State and Gholdy Muhammad of Georgia State University, who advocate the theory. Here's the other evidence cited by Youngkin's campaign: The Virginia Department of Education has a web page titled 'Anti-racism in Education.' It cites the book 'How to be an Antiracist,' by Ibram X. Kendi, a professor at Boston College and advocate of critical race theory. A 15-book reading list posted by the department's Office of Equity and Community Engagement includes 'Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education,' written by three academics. The same book was recommended to local superintendents in a February 2019 memo by State Superintendent of Public Instruction James Lane. He sent a list of resources to help the local leaders achieve 'the ultimate goal of enhancing a climate that is welcoming, socially supportive, just, caring, nurturing, and respectful for all students, families, and school personnel.' A Fox News report on July 2, which falsely stated that Loudoun County public schools 'spent $34K on critical race theory coaching for administrators.' In fact, receipts show the school system spent $34,167 on equity training in 2020, with $3,125 going to 'coaching support' for leaders in critical race theory. A video of Beth Barts, a Loudoun school board member, saying that critical race theory probably influences the county's equity efforts. 'While we are not teaching critical race theory necessarily in classrooms, I will say probably that there are portions of critical race theory that we may be applying when we give the lens to look at some of our policies,' she said at a June 1 board meeting. A July 23, 2020, memo from Amanda Voelker, principal of James River High School in Chesterfield County. Voelker promised to promote 'a culture of inclusion that supports students of all backgrounds.' As Younkin's campaign notes, she attached an article by Ohio-based educator Jamilah Pitts that urges teachers to let students 'apply critical lenses, such as critical race theory and Marxist theory, to the reading of news articles to allow students to think more deeply about who is being most affected and why.' A Sept, 6, 2020, tweet by John Cosimano, vice principal of Green Run High School in Virginia Beach, supporting The 1619 Project to improve teaching about the consequences of slavery and the contribution of African-Americans to U.S. history. Department of Education response Blackstone, the Education Department's executive spokesman, emphasized that critical race theory is not mentioned in Virginia's learning standards. He said opponents of the theory sometimes conflate teaching it with the state's goals of ensuring racial equity in school policies. 'Simply put, to equate all the VDOE's educational equity work with critical race theory is inaccurate and unfair,' he wrote in an email. Blackstone said that discussion of critical race theory at seminars does not mean the department embraces it. 'Outside resources referenced by the department, and speakers selected for department-sponsored conferences and workshops represent a variety of viewpoints, and the inclusion of a particular author or speaker who is not a VDOE employee does not necessarily represent a department endorsement of all expressed views and opinions,' he wrote. | Our ruling Youngkin said, 'We actually have this critical race theory moved into all our schools in Virginia.' Critical race theory is being widely discussed by educators across Virginia. But there's a difference between educators learning about the theory and actually teaching it to students. On that front, Youngkin cites a collection of memos and seminars, but no evidence that critical race theory is being taught in each of the state's 1,825 public schools. Critical race theory is not mentioned in the state's Standards of Learning. A growing list of localities say they do not teach it. We rate Youngkin's statement False. | []
|
'We actually have this critical race theory moved into all our schools in Virginia. | Contradiction | Republican gubernatorial nominee Glenn Youngkin says critical race theory has become pervasive in Virginia schools and must be expunged. 'We actually have this critical race theory moved into all of our schools in Virginia,' he said during a July 9 campaign speech in rural Wytheville. 'We're actually watching this critical race theory move its way into all schools across Virginia,' he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on July 23. 'Critical race theory has moved into our school system and we have to remove it,' he told Fox News on Aug. 5. Critical race theory - a broad set of ideas about systemic bias and privilege - has become a political flashpoint across the nation. It holds that racism is part of a broader pattern in America: It is woven into laws, and it shows up in who gets a job interview, the sort of home loans people are offered, how they are treated by police, and other facets of daily life large and small. There is a movement by some educators to incorporate critical race theory into instruction, particularly in U.S. history which they say has been taught from a white vantage point. A central complaint of critical race theory is that, because it focuses on race, the approach is itself racist. Critics say it presents solely a negative picture of the United States and is designed to make students feel bad about their country. At least 12 states have banned critical race theory teaching, and bills barring such instruction have been introduced in at least 15 states. The Virginia General Assembly has not considered a bill to ban critical race theory from schools. But the topic has roused emotions in a number of localities and become a key issue in Youngkin's campaign. So we fact-checked his claim that 'critical race theory has moved into all our schools in Virginia,' and found it to be highly exaggerated. Is critical race theory taught throughout Virginia? Critical race theory is not mentioned in Virginia's Standards of Learning, which set baselines of knowledge students are expected to master in different grades and subjects. Although the standards are set by the state Board of Education, local school systems set the teaching curricula to reach those goals. So there is no statewide count of how many schools teach critical race theory. There's no specific definition of critical race theory curricula that would allow an objective count. Contrary to Youngkin's statement, however, a number of localities have issued statements saying they do not teach critical race theory. Here's a sampling: Youngkin's proof We asked Youngkin's campaign to back up his statement that critical race theory has 'moved into all of our schools in Virginia.' Only a smattering of the evidence it offered pointed to individual school systems or schools. Most of it shows that Virginia educators have discussed - but not endorsed - the theory at seminars and have been encouraged to read about it. The Virginia Department of Education holds an annual two-day seminar on improving equity in schools. Equity, as defined by the department, is not a teaching theory. It's 'a commitment to eliminating the predictability of student outcomes based on race, gender, ZIP code, ability, socio-economic status, and/or languages spoken at home,' said Ken Blackstone, executive communications director. The goal, in simple terms, is to make schools more 'welcoming' and ensure fair policies. Youngkin's campaign says critical race theory has been promoted at these conferences. It notes that: In 2015, there was a presentation on critical race theory at a two-day conference on improving school disciplinary practices in Virginia. Brenda L. Walker, an education professor at the University of Central Florida, urged educators to 'embrace critical race theory' among other recommendations. Gov. Ralph Northam, in closing remarks at the 2020 conference, said Virginia needs to 'build anti-racist school communities.' Speakers at the 2021 conference included Wendi Manuel-Scott, who teaches critical race theory at George Mason University; and Muhammad Khalifa of Ohio State and Gholdy Muhammad of Georgia State University, who advocate the theory. Here's the other evidence cited by Youngkin's campaign: The Virginia Department of Education has a web page titled 'Anti-racism in Education.' It cites the book 'How to be an Antiracist,' by Ibram X. Kendi, a professor at Boston College and advocate of critical race theory. A 15-book reading list posted by the department's Office of Equity and Community Engagement includes 'Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education,' written by three academics. The same book was recommended to local superintendents in a February 2019 memo by State Superintendent of Public Instruction James Lane. He sent a list of resources to help the local leaders achieve 'the ultimate goal of enhancing a climate that is welcoming, socially supportive, just, caring, nurturing, and respectful for all students, families, and school personnel.' A Fox News report on July 2, which falsely stated that Loudoun County public schools 'spent $34K on critical race theory coaching for administrators.' In fact, receipts show the school system spent $34,167 on equity training in 2020, with $3,125 going to 'coaching support' for leaders in critical race theory. A video of Beth Barts, a Loudoun school board member, saying that critical race theory probably influences the county's equity efforts. 'While we are not teaching critical race theory necessarily in classrooms, I will say probably that there are portions of critical race theory that we may be applying when we give the lens to look at some of our policies,' she said at a June 1 board meeting. A July 23, 2020, memo from Amanda Voelker, principal of James River High School in Chesterfield County. Voelker promised to promote 'a culture of inclusion that supports students of all backgrounds.' As Younkin's campaign notes, she attached an article by Ohio-based educator Jamilah Pitts that urges teachers to let students 'apply critical lenses, such as critical race theory and Marxist theory, to the reading of news articles to allow students to think more deeply about who is being most affected and why.' A Sept, 6, 2020, tweet by John Cosimano, vice principal of Green Run High School in Virginia Beach, supporting The 1619 Project to improve teaching about the consequences of slavery and the contribution of African-Americans to U.S. history. Department of Education response Blackstone, the Education Department's executive spokesman, emphasized that critical race theory is not mentioned in Virginia's learning standards. He said opponents of the theory sometimes conflate teaching it with the state's goals of ensuring racial equity in school policies. 'Simply put, to equate all the VDOE's educational equity work with critical race theory is inaccurate and unfair,' he wrote in an email. Blackstone said that discussion of critical race theory at seminars does not mean the department embraces it. 'Outside resources referenced by the department, and speakers selected for department-sponsored conferences and workshops represent a variety of viewpoints, and the inclusion of a particular author or speaker who is not a VDOE employee does not necessarily represent a department endorsement of all expressed views and opinions,' he wrote. | Our ruling Youngkin said, 'We actually have this critical race theory moved into all our schools in Virginia.' Critical race theory is being widely discussed by educators across Virginia. But there's a difference between educators learning about the theory and actually teaching it to students. On that front, Youngkin cites a collection of memos and seminars, but no evidence that critical race theory is being taught in each of the state's 1,825 public schools. Critical race theory is not mentioned in the state's Standards of Learning. A growing list of localities say they do not teach it. We rate Youngkin's statement False. | []
|
'We actually have this critical race theory moved into all our schools in Virginia. | Contradiction | Republican gubernatorial nominee Glenn Youngkin says critical race theory has become pervasive in Virginia schools and must be expunged. 'We actually have this critical race theory moved into all of our schools in Virginia,' he said during a July 9 campaign speech in rural Wytheville. 'We're actually watching this critical race theory move its way into all schools across Virginia,' he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on July 23. 'Critical race theory has moved into our school system and we have to remove it,' he told Fox News on Aug. 5. Critical race theory - a broad set of ideas about systemic bias and privilege - has become a political flashpoint across the nation. It holds that racism is part of a broader pattern in America: It is woven into laws, and it shows up in who gets a job interview, the sort of home loans people are offered, how they are treated by police, and other facets of daily life large and small. There is a movement by some educators to incorporate critical race theory into instruction, particularly in U.S. history which they say has been taught from a white vantage point. A central complaint of critical race theory is that, because it focuses on race, the approach is itself racist. Critics say it presents solely a negative picture of the United States and is designed to make students feel bad about their country. At least 12 states have banned critical race theory teaching, and bills barring such instruction have been introduced in at least 15 states. The Virginia General Assembly has not considered a bill to ban critical race theory from schools. But the topic has roused emotions in a number of localities and become a key issue in Youngkin's campaign. So we fact-checked his claim that 'critical race theory has moved into all our schools in Virginia,' and found it to be highly exaggerated. Is critical race theory taught throughout Virginia? Critical race theory is not mentioned in Virginia's Standards of Learning, which set baselines of knowledge students are expected to master in different grades and subjects. Although the standards are set by the state Board of Education, local school systems set the teaching curricula to reach those goals. So there is no statewide count of how many schools teach critical race theory. There's no specific definition of critical race theory curricula that would allow an objective count. Contrary to Youngkin's statement, however, a number of localities have issued statements saying they do not teach critical race theory. Here's a sampling: Youngkin's proof We asked Youngkin's campaign to back up his statement that critical race theory has 'moved into all of our schools in Virginia.' Only a smattering of the evidence it offered pointed to individual school systems or schools. Most of it shows that Virginia educators have discussed - but not endorsed - the theory at seminars and have been encouraged to read about it. The Virginia Department of Education holds an annual two-day seminar on improving equity in schools. Equity, as defined by the department, is not a teaching theory. It's 'a commitment to eliminating the predictability of student outcomes based on race, gender, ZIP code, ability, socio-economic status, and/or languages spoken at home,' said Ken Blackstone, executive communications director. The goal, in simple terms, is to make schools more 'welcoming' and ensure fair policies. Youngkin's campaign says critical race theory has been promoted at these conferences. It notes that: In 2015, there was a presentation on critical race theory at a two-day conference on improving school disciplinary practices in Virginia. Brenda L. Walker, an education professor at the University of Central Florida, urged educators to 'embrace critical race theory' among other recommendations. Gov. Ralph Northam, in closing remarks at the 2020 conference, said Virginia needs to 'build anti-racist school communities.' Speakers at the 2021 conference included Wendi Manuel-Scott, who teaches critical race theory at George Mason University; and Muhammad Khalifa of Ohio State and Gholdy Muhammad of Georgia State University, who advocate the theory. Here's the other evidence cited by Youngkin's campaign: The Virginia Department of Education has a web page titled 'Anti-racism in Education.' It cites the book 'How to be an Antiracist,' by Ibram X. Kendi, a professor at Boston College and advocate of critical race theory. A 15-book reading list posted by the department's Office of Equity and Community Engagement includes 'Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education,' written by three academics. The same book was recommended to local superintendents in a February 2019 memo by State Superintendent of Public Instruction James Lane. He sent a list of resources to help the local leaders achieve 'the ultimate goal of enhancing a climate that is welcoming, socially supportive, just, caring, nurturing, and respectful for all students, families, and school personnel.' A Fox News report on July 2, which falsely stated that Loudoun County public schools 'spent $34K on critical race theory coaching for administrators.' In fact, receipts show the school system spent $34,167 on equity training in 2020, with $3,125 going to 'coaching support' for leaders in critical race theory. A video of Beth Barts, a Loudoun school board member, saying that critical race theory probably influences the county's equity efforts. 'While we are not teaching critical race theory necessarily in classrooms, I will say probably that there are portions of critical race theory that we may be applying when we give the lens to look at some of our policies,' she said at a June 1 board meeting. A July 23, 2020, memo from Amanda Voelker, principal of James River High School in Chesterfield County. Voelker promised to promote 'a culture of inclusion that supports students of all backgrounds.' As Younkin's campaign notes, she attached an article by Ohio-based educator Jamilah Pitts that urges teachers to let students 'apply critical lenses, such as critical race theory and Marxist theory, to the reading of news articles to allow students to think more deeply about who is being most affected and why.' A Sept, 6, 2020, tweet by John Cosimano, vice principal of Green Run High School in Virginia Beach, supporting The 1619 Project to improve teaching about the consequences of slavery and the contribution of African-Americans to U.S. history. Department of Education response Blackstone, the Education Department's executive spokesman, emphasized that critical race theory is not mentioned in Virginia's learning standards. He said opponents of the theory sometimes conflate teaching it with the state's goals of ensuring racial equity in school policies. 'Simply put, to equate all the VDOE's educational equity work with critical race theory is inaccurate and unfair,' he wrote in an email. Blackstone said that discussion of critical race theory at seminars does not mean the department embraces it. 'Outside resources referenced by the department, and speakers selected for department-sponsored conferences and workshops represent a variety of viewpoints, and the inclusion of a particular author or speaker who is not a VDOE employee does not necessarily represent a department endorsement of all expressed views and opinions,' he wrote. | Our ruling Youngkin said, 'We actually have this critical race theory moved into all our schools in Virginia.' Critical race theory is being widely discussed by educators across Virginia. But there's a difference between educators learning about the theory and actually teaching it to students. On that front, Youngkin cites a collection of memos and seminars, but no evidence that critical race theory is being taught in each of the state's 1,825 public schools. Critical race theory is not mentioned in the state's Standards of Learning. A growing list of localities say they do not teach it. We rate Youngkin's statement False. | []
|
'Supreme Court Shakes Up 2020 Election, Assigns Conservatives To Swing State Circuit Courts. | Contradiction | On Nov. 20, the Supreme Court assigned new U.S. Court of Appeals circuits to its justices. Under the new arrangement, the four justices perceived to be the most conservative will oversee circuits where the Trump campaign has filed lawsuits to contest the results of the election. For example, Brett Kavanaugh now oversees the circuit that includes Michigan, Amy Coney Barrett oversees Wisconsin, Samuel Alito oversees Pennsylvania and Clarence Thomas oversees Georgia. Conservative media outlets and social media users seized on the news, suggesting that the new assignments could help President Donald Trump overturn the results of the 2020 election election. 'Supreme Court Shakes Up 2020 Election, Assigns Conservatives To Swing State Circuit Courts,' reads the headline of an article published in the GOP Daily Brief. However, experts we spoke with told us that these posts and articles misunderstand how the federal court system works. 'The claim that this realignment was done in order to influence the election - or the notion that it will have that impact - doesn't really reflect reality,' said Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Law School. What power do justices have over their assigned appellate court circuits? The U.S. Court of Appeals is organized into 13 circuits - 12 regional ones plus the federal circuit. Each of the circuit courts is assigned to a Supreme Court justice based on his or her familiarity with the region, often from having lived or worked there in the past. One of the primary roles of the overseeing justice is filtering out cases eligible to be heard before the Supreme Court. But their powers over the appellate courts are limited. In their capacity as circuit justices, individual justices are empowered by statute to take only discrete, temporary actions on lower-court decisions. For example, the justices can extend the deadline to file a document or, in rare cases, issue an emergency stay on a lower-court decision until the rest of the Supreme Court has the opportunity to weigh in. An election challenge that could overturn the outcome of a vote would not be handled unilaterally. 'A circuit justice would be extremely unlikely to grant relief on his or her own in an election-related case,' said Michael Morley, assistant professor at Florida State University College of Law. 'If the circuit justice thought there was a potentially substantial claim, he or she would refer the request to the full Supreme Court. And even if a circuit justice did act unilaterally, the full court could overrule that ruling.' There is no evidence to suggest that the Supreme Court issued new circuit court assignments to 'shake up' the 2020 election. Circuit courts are reassigned whenever a new justice is appointed, and the latest reassignments came less than a month after Barrett, the newest justice, was sworn in. The Supreme Court typically assigns justices to locations they are familiar with. The recent reassignment follows this logic, said Tara Leigh Grove, a legal scholar at the Alabama University School of Law. For example, Barrett is overseeing the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, where she was a judge before joining the Supreme Court. In addition, neither Alito nor Thomas moved circuits under the arrangement. Alito was overseeing Pennsylvania, and Thomas was overseeing Georgia before Barrett's confirmation. 'Anybody who thinks that there was any political motivation to the reassignments is completely wrong,' Grove said. What implications do the reassignments have for the election? Former Vice President Joe Biden won the election, carrying enough states to secure 306 electoral votes. But the Trump campaign has challenged the outcome in several battleground states that helped put Biden over the top. The reassignment of conservative Supreme Court justices won't have an impact on the outcome of election challenges, because the bulk of post-election litigation takes place in state courts, said Rebecca Green, a law professor and co-director of the Election Law Program at William & Mary Law School. During post-election litigation, federal courts weigh in only on questions that concern claims about federal statutes or the U.S. Constitution. For example, Bush v. Gore - the controversial Supreme Court decision in a Florida recount dispute that decided the 2000 presidential election - involved the Constitution's equal protection clause and a federal law called the Electoral Count Act. Without a federal question, the higher courts lack jurisdiction. The Trump campaign has pursued several federal claims in court. But in all of these cases so far, the number of ballots under challenge isn't enough to change the election outcome, Green explained. 'This is not a Bush v. Gore election, where the margin was 537 votes,' she said. Finally, Green said, both federal and state courts have set a 'clear pattern' for post-election lawsuits this cycle: 'Claims that lack grounded legal arguments and supporting evidence do not proceed ... irrespective of the perceived political leanings of the judges who have heard these claims.' In other words, the ideology of the judges is unlikely to affect the outcome of a lawsuit if it lacks merit and evidence. On Nov. 27, three Republican-appointed federal appeals court judges threw out a Trump campaign lawsuit in Pennsylvania for lack of evidence. | Our ruling An article claims that the Supreme Court is shaking up the 2020 election by assigning conservatives to swing-state circuit courts. The Supreme Court did reassign some justices, but it's misleading to claim that this will affect the election outcome. Circuit courts are routinely reassigned when a new justice joins the Supreme Court, and an assignment is often based on a justice's familiarity with a certain circuit or region, not political ideology. Law professors told us that individual justices would have limited power to unilaterally overturn the election outcome in any state in their assigned circuit. And there are too few ballots being challenged in federal court to affect the outcome of the election. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"104494-proof-25-68b9f6887c00febf7471cb4a66dc736d.jpg"
]
|
'Supreme Court Shakes Up 2020 Election, Assigns Conservatives To Swing State Circuit Courts. | Contradiction | On Nov. 20, the Supreme Court assigned new U.S. Court of Appeals circuits to its justices. Under the new arrangement, the four justices perceived to be the most conservative will oversee circuits where the Trump campaign has filed lawsuits to contest the results of the election. For example, Brett Kavanaugh now oversees the circuit that includes Michigan, Amy Coney Barrett oversees Wisconsin, Samuel Alito oversees Pennsylvania and Clarence Thomas oversees Georgia. Conservative media outlets and social media users seized on the news, suggesting that the new assignments could help President Donald Trump overturn the results of the 2020 election election. 'Supreme Court Shakes Up 2020 Election, Assigns Conservatives To Swing State Circuit Courts,' reads the headline of an article published in the GOP Daily Brief. However, experts we spoke with told us that these posts and articles misunderstand how the federal court system works. 'The claim that this realignment was done in order to influence the election - or the notion that it will have that impact - doesn't really reflect reality,' said Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Law School. What power do justices have over their assigned appellate court circuits? The U.S. Court of Appeals is organized into 13 circuits - 12 regional ones plus the federal circuit. Each of the circuit courts is assigned to a Supreme Court justice based on his or her familiarity with the region, often from having lived or worked there in the past. One of the primary roles of the overseeing justice is filtering out cases eligible to be heard before the Supreme Court. But their powers over the appellate courts are limited. In their capacity as circuit justices, individual justices are empowered by statute to take only discrete, temporary actions on lower-court decisions. For example, the justices can extend the deadline to file a document or, in rare cases, issue an emergency stay on a lower-court decision until the rest of the Supreme Court has the opportunity to weigh in. An election challenge that could overturn the outcome of a vote would not be handled unilaterally. 'A circuit justice would be extremely unlikely to grant relief on his or her own in an election-related case,' said Michael Morley, assistant professor at Florida State University College of Law. 'If the circuit justice thought there was a potentially substantial claim, he or she would refer the request to the full Supreme Court. And even if a circuit justice did act unilaterally, the full court could overrule that ruling.' There is no evidence to suggest that the Supreme Court issued new circuit court assignments to 'shake up' the 2020 election. Circuit courts are reassigned whenever a new justice is appointed, and the latest reassignments came less than a month after Barrett, the newest justice, was sworn in. The Supreme Court typically assigns justices to locations they are familiar with. The recent reassignment follows this logic, said Tara Leigh Grove, a legal scholar at the Alabama University School of Law. For example, Barrett is overseeing the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, where she was a judge before joining the Supreme Court. In addition, neither Alito nor Thomas moved circuits under the arrangement. Alito was overseeing Pennsylvania, and Thomas was overseeing Georgia before Barrett's confirmation. 'Anybody who thinks that there was any political motivation to the reassignments is completely wrong,' Grove said. What implications do the reassignments have for the election? Former Vice President Joe Biden won the election, carrying enough states to secure 306 electoral votes. But the Trump campaign has challenged the outcome in several battleground states that helped put Biden over the top. The reassignment of conservative Supreme Court justices won't have an impact on the outcome of election challenges, because the bulk of post-election litigation takes place in state courts, said Rebecca Green, a law professor and co-director of the Election Law Program at William & Mary Law School. During post-election litigation, federal courts weigh in only on questions that concern claims about federal statutes or the U.S. Constitution. For example, Bush v. Gore - the controversial Supreme Court decision in a Florida recount dispute that decided the 2000 presidential election - involved the Constitution's equal protection clause and a federal law called the Electoral Count Act. Without a federal question, the higher courts lack jurisdiction. The Trump campaign has pursued several federal claims in court. But in all of these cases so far, the number of ballots under challenge isn't enough to change the election outcome, Green explained. 'This is not a Bush v. Gore election, where the margin was 537 votes,' she said. Finally, Green said, both federal and state courts have set a 'clear pattern' for post-election lawsuits this cycle: 'Claims that lack grounded legal arguments and supporting evidence do not proceed ... irrespective of the perceived political leanings of the judges who have heard these claims.' In other words, the ideology of the judges is unlikely to affect the outcome of a lawsuit if it lacks merit and evidence. On Nov. 27, three Republican-appointed federal appeals court judges threw out a Trump campaign lawsuit in Pennsylvania for lack of evidence. | Our ruling An article claims that the Supreme Court is shaking up the 2020 election by assigning conservatives to swing-state circuit courts. The Supreme Court did reassign some justices, but it's misleading to claim that this will affect the election outcome. Circuit courts are routinely reassigned when a new justice joins the Supreme Court, and an assignment is often based on a justice's familiarity with a certain circuit or region, not political ideology. Law professors told us that individual justices would have limited power to unilaterally overturn the election outcome in any state in their assigned circuit. And there are too few ballots being challenged in federal court to affect the outcome of the election. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"104494-proof-25-68b9f6887c00febf7471cb4a66dc736d.jpg"
]
|
'Supreme Court Shakes Up 2020 Election, Assigns Conservatives To Swing State Circuit Courts. | Contradiction | On Nov. 20, the Supreme Court assigned new U.S. Court of Appeals circuits to its justices. Under the new arrangement, the four justices perceived to be the most conservative will oversee circuits where the Trump campaign has filed lawsuits to contest the results of the election. For example, Brett Kavanaugh now oversees the circuit that includes Michigan, Amy Coney Barrett oversees Wisconsin, Samuel Alito oversees Pennsylvania and Clarence Thomas oversees Georgia. Conservative media outlets and social media users seized on the news, suggesting that the new assignments could help President Donald Trump overturn the results of the 2020 election election. 'Supreme Court Shakes Up 2020 Election, Assigns Conservatives To Swing State Circuit Courts,' reads the headline of an article published in the GOP Daily Brief. However, experts we spoke with told us that these posts and articles misunderstand how the federal court system works. 'The claim that this realignment was done in order to influence the election - or the notion that it will have that impact - doesn't really reflect reality,' said Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Law School. What power do justices have over their assigned appellate court circuits? The U.S. Court of Appeals is organized into 13 circuits - 12 regional ones plus the federal circuit. Each of the circuit courts is assigned to a Supreme Court justice based on his or her familiarity with the region, often from having lived or worked there in the past. One of the primary roles of the overseeing justice is filtering out cases eligible to be heard before the Supreme Court. But their powers over the appellate courts are limited. In their capacity as circuit justices, individual justices are empowered by statute to take only discrete, temporary actions on lower-court decisions. For example, the justices can extend the deadline to file a document or, in rare cases, issue an emergency stay on a lower-court decision until the rest of the Supreme Court has the opportunity to weigh in. An election challenge that could overturn the outcome of a vote would not be handled unilaterally. 'A circuit justice would be extremely unlikely to grant relief on his or her own in an election-related case,' said Michael Morley, assistant professor at Florida State University College of Law. 'If the circuit justice thought there was a potentially substantial claim, he or she would refer the request to the full Supreme Court. And even if a circuit justice did act unilaterally, the full court could overrule that ruling.' There is no evidence to suggest that the Supreme Court issued new circuit court assignments to 'shake up' the 2020 election. Circuit courts are reassigned whenever a new justice is appointed, and the latest reassignments came less than a month after Barrett, the newest justice, was sworn in. The Supreme Court typically assigns justices to locations they are familiar with. The recent reassignment follows this logic, said Tara Leigh Grove, a legal scholar at the Alabama University School of Law. For example, Barrett is overseeing the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, where she was a judge before joining the Supreme Court. In addition, neither Alito nor Thomas moved circuits under the arrangement. Alito was overseeing Pennsylvania, and Thomas was overseeing Georgia before Barrett's confirmation. 'Anybody who thinks that there was any political motivation to the reassignments is completely wrong,' Grove said. What implications do the reassignments have for the election? Former Vice President Joe Biden won the election, carrying enough states to secure 306 electoral votes. But the Trump campaign has challenged the outcome in several battleground states that helped put Biden over the top. The reassignment of conservative Supreme Court justices won't have an impact on the outcome of election challenges, because the bulk of post-election litigation takes place in state courts, said Rebecca Green, a law professor and co-director of the Election Law Program at William & Mary Law School. During post-election litigation, federal courts weigh in only on questions that concern claims about federal statutes or the U.S. Constitution. For example, Bush v. Gore - the controversial Supreme Court decision in a Florida recount dispute that decided the 2000 presidential election - involved the Constitution's equal protection clause and a federal law called the Electoral Count Act. Without a federal question, the higher courts lack jurisdiction. The Trump campaign has pursued several federal claims in court. But in all of these cases so far, the number of ballots under challenge isn't enough to change the election outcome, Green explained. 'This is not a Bush v. Gore election, where the margin was 537 votes,' she said. Finally, Green said, both federal and state courts have set a 'clear pattern' for post-election lawsuits this cycle: 'Claims that lack grounded legal arguments and supporting evidence do not proceed ... irrespective of the perceived political leanings of the judges who have heard these claims.' In other words, the ideology of the judges is unlikely to affect the outcome of a lawsuit if it lacks merit and evidence. On Nov. 27, three Republican-appointed federal appeals court judges threw out a Trump campaign lawsuit in Pennsylvania for lack of evidence. | Our ruling An article claims that the Supreme Court is shaking up the 2020 election by assigning conservatives to swing-state circuit courts. The Supreme Court did reassign some justices, but it's misleading to claim that this will affect the election outcome. Circuit courts are routinely reassigned when a new justice joins the Supreme Court, and an assignment is often based on a justice's familiarity with a certain circuit or region, not political ideology. Law professors told us that individual justices would have limited power to unilaterally overturn the election outcome in any state in their assigned circuit. And there are too few ballots being challenged in federal court to affect the outcome of the election. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"104494-proof-25-68b9f6887c00febf7471cb4a66dc736d.jpg"
]
|
Contractors hired by government officials to frame Donald Trump are 'behind the fake news in mainstream media' and recent protests. | Contradiction | Millie Weaver, a correspondent for Infowars, posted on her website on Aug. 3 that 'ShadowGate' was coming soon. Billed as perhaps the 'biggest whistleblowing event ever,' the promised exposé, nearly an hour-and-a-half long, started spreading on social media about two weeks later. Much in the vein of Infowars, which was created by Alex Jones and promotes conspiracy theories, this video makes sweeping claims about a supposed shadow government puppeteering civil society. But it provides no supporting evidence for its eye-opening claims. 'What if I were to tell you that a small group of government contractors were hired by government officials to frame the Trump campaign, set him up for the Russia collusion investigation, provided witnesses for the impeachment hearings, and provided administrative support services to the Department of Justice during the Mueller investigation,' Weaver says as the video starts. 'And what if it just so happened that this same group of government contractors are behind the fake news in mainstream media, influence operations on social media, and the civil unrest nationwide pushing the defund the police movement.' The referenced 'contractors' form the 'military industrial complex,' Weaver says. 'These contractors have used their connections, power and influence to create an unprecedented international criminal enterprise where blackmail is traded and people's personal data is gold.' From there more allegations unfurl without evidence, including that: - News pundits like Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' are assets for this shadow government. - Polls that showed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton winning the 2016 presidential election by a big margin were an attempt at 'hijacking reality' to distract from 'the fact that she couldn't walk, talk, climb stairs.' - So-called 'Obama phones' - described as free cell phones for low-income families - 'played a significant role in fostering' unrest in Ferguson, Mo., after Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager was shot in 2014. -The whistleblower who told federal officials that President Donald Trump solicited foreign interference from Ukraine in the 2020 election is a 'decoy.' (Here, the ShadowGate video shows several photos of the son of Democratic fundraiser George Soros, Alexander Soros, who has been frequently misidentified as the man some conservatives allege is the whistleblower.) This video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) One of the key tenets of PolitiFact is that the burden of proof is on the speaker. This video and its claims fall woefully short. The ShadowGate narrative hinges on the allegations of two 'whistleblowers,' someone referred to by the first name of 'Tore,' who is described as a linguist and intelligence contractor for the U.S. Navy, and Patrick Bergy, who is described as a 'PSYOP Program Developer' in cyber security for the U.S. Army. Neither the Navy nor the Army answered our questions about the video, including our efforts to verify their employment history. Though Tore is not given a last name in the video she appears to be Tore Maras-Lindeman, host of the radio show Tore Says who in 2018 announced she was running for mayor of Minot, N.D., with the slogan 'Make Minot Great Again.' Bergy, meanwhile, recently suggested in a video posted on YouTube that Weaver had recently been arrested because of her work exposing the deep state. Actually, Weaver and her boyfriend were arrested on charges of robbery, tampering with evidence, obstructing justice and domestic violence, Fox News reported. Davey Alba, a reporter for the New York Times covering disinformation, tweeted on Aug. 16 that an emergency legal fund for Weaver had raised more than $88,000. By Aug. 17, it was at more than $161,000. 'So many tactics are colliding with this piece of misinformation,' Alba said about the ShadowGate video. 'To be clear: QAnon is largely behind the spread of this video.' The QAnon conspiracy theory similarly swirls around secret hands, pitting the president against a 'deep state' set on undermining him. Recent misinformation perpetuated by its believers wrongly claimed that the explosion at the port of Beirut was actually a bombing involving the Rothschild family, and that the online home goods retailer Wayfair was mixed up in a global child sex-trafficking ring. What's also clear here: while the ShadowGate video makes incredible claims about the government, they amount to an unfounded conspiracy theory that recasts recent major news events - like Black Lives Matter demonstrations, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and news coverage that's unflattering to the president - as the product of secret meddling by the U.S. government. The theory is baseless. Black Lives Matter protests arose from anger and grief over police killings of unarmed black men. Mueller didn't find evidence that Trump knowingly conspired with the Kremlin. And news coverage that scrutinizes the president and his actions isn't 'fake news' courtesy of some government contractors, but simply journalism. We rate these claims Pants on Fire. | We rate these claims Pants on Fire. | []
|
'More than one MILLION marchers for President @realDonaldTrump descend on' Washington, D.C., on Nov. 14. | Contradiction | The Trump administration is ending the same way it started: spreading false claims about crowd sizes in Washington, D.C. On Nov. 14, thousands of President Donald Trump's supporters rallied in Washington to support false claims that he had won re-election. But White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted an alternative estimate of the demonstration's attendance. 'AMAZING! More than one MILLION marchers for President @realDonaldTrump descend on the swamp in support,' McEnany said in the tweet, which has been shared more than 56,000 times. The post took us back to January 2017, when Trump's first press secretary, Sean Spicer, claimed the crowd at Trump's inauguration 'was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period.' We rated that claim Pants on Fire! Since Trump retweeted a claim that more than a million people gathered in Washington to support him, we wanted to take a closer look at McEnany's tweet. (Screenshot from Twitter) The claim is wrong. News outlets that covered the protests estimated that thousands, not more than 1 million, attended them. It's mathematically impossible for more than 135,000 people to fit in the location that McEnany tweeted a photo of. On the morning of Nov. 14, several concurrent events - including the Million MAGA March, the March for Trump and Stop the Steal DC - converged near Freedom Plaza in Washington. Among the demonstrators were conspiracy theorists, right-wing activists alleging widespread election fraud and members of the Proud Boys, a far right, all-male group with a history of violent confrontations. Several Washington news outlets estimated that the pro-Trump demonstrations had thousands of attendees. Trump himself has tweeted various estimates of the crowd size, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. Women for America First, one of the groups that demonstrated, secured a National Park Service permit for 10,000 people in Freedom Plaza. Here are a few other estimates of the crowd size on Nov. 14: We asked the Metropolitan Police Department for its best estimate of the attendance at the weekend's Washington-area demonstrations, which grew violent toward the end of the day when hundreds of counterprotesters showed up. Brianna Jordan, a public affairs specialist, said the MPD 'does not provide numbers on crowd size.' It's difficult to gauge crowd size, and estimates are just that - estimates. But there is no evidence that more than 1 million people attended pro-Trump demonstrations in Washington over the weekend. In her tweet, McEnany included two screenshots of a Fox News broadcast about the gatherings. The footage shows demonstrators on a street near Freedom Plaza, which is a few blocks east of the White House, a little after 11 a.m. Eastern Time. McEnany tweeted her estimate at 11:16 a.m. ET, before the marches were officially set to begin at noon. It's also not possible for more than 135,000 people to fit into Freedom Plaza and the surrounding streets and sidewalks, according to MapChecking, an online tool that uses a mathematical equation to estimate how many people can fit in a given location. The stills that McEnany shared show plenty of space between demonstrators. For there to be 105,000 people depicted in the photos, which MapChecking classifies as 'packed' for the location, there would have to have been four people per square meter. The National Park Service says the maximum capacity for Freedom Plaza is 13,900. For comparison, estimates of the crowd size at Trump's inauguration ranged from 250,000 to 600,000. And that event was held on the National Mall, where there is far more space for people to spread out. Also in 2017, at least 470,000 people were estimated to have showed up for the Women's March near the National Mall in Washington. Estimates for the crowd size at the 1995 Million Man March, which inspired the name of the Million MAGA March, vary widely, ranging between 400,000 and 1.9 million. We reached out to the White House for a comment, but we haven't heard back. McEnany's tweet is inaccurate. We rate it False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more. | The post took us back to January 2017, when Trump's first press secretary, Sean Spicer, claimed the crowd at Trump's inauguration 'was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period.' We rated that claim Pants on Fire! Since Trump retweeted a claim that more than a million people gathered in Washington to support him, we wanted to take a closer look at McEnany's tweet. (Screenshot from Twitter) The claim is wrong. News outlets that covered the protests estimated that thousands, not more than 1 million, attended them. It's mathematically impossible for more than 135,000 people to fit in the location that McEnany tweeted a photo of. On the morning of Nov. 14, several concurrent events - including the Million MAGA March, the March for Trump and Stop the Steal DC - converged near Freedom Plaza in Washington. Among the demonstrators were conspiracy theorists, right-wing activists alleging widespread election fraud and members of the Proud Boys, a far right, all-male group with a history of violent confrontations. Several Washington news outlets estimated that the pro-Trump demonstrations had thousands of attendees. Trump himself has tweeted various estimates of the crowd size, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. Women for America First, one of the groups that demonstrated, secured a National Park Service permit for 10,000 people in Freedom Plaza. Here are a few other estimates of the crowd size on Nov. 14: Fox News: 'Tens of thousands' The Washington Post: 'Thousands' WUSA: 'Thousands' Featured Fact-check Aaron Rodgers stated on November 5, 2021 in an interview on the Pat McAfee Show 'This idea that it's the pandemic of the unvaccinated, it's just a total lie.' By Gabrielle Settles • November 8, 2021 WTOP: 'Thousands' CNN: 'Thousands' USA Today: 'Tens of thousands' The Washington Times: 'Thousands' Washingtonian: 'Thousands' We asked the Metropolitan Police Department for its best estimate of the attendance at the weekend's Washington-area demonstrations, which grew violent toward the end of the day when hundreds of counterprotesters showed up. Brianna Jordan, a public affairs specialist, said the MPD 'does not provide numbers on crowd size.' It's difficult to gauge crowd size, and estimates are just that - estimates. But there is no evidence that more than 1 million people attended pro-Trump demonstrations in Washington over the weekend. In her tweet, McEnany included two screenshots of a Fox News broadcast about the gatherings. The footage shows demonstrators on a street near Freedom Plaza, which is a few blocks east of the White House, a little after 11 a.m. Eastern Time. McEnany tweeted her estimate at 11:16 a.m. ET, before the marches were officially set to begin at noon. It's also not possible for more than 135,000 people to fit into Freedom Plaza and the surrounding streets and sidewalks, according to MapChecking, an online tool that uses a mathematical equation to estimate how many people can fit in a given location. The stills that McEnany shared show plenty of space between demonstrators. For there to be 105,000 people depicted in the photos, which MapChecking classifies as 'packed' for the location, there would have to have been four people per square meter. The National Park Service says the maximum capacity for Freedom Plaza is 13,900. For comparison, estimates of the crowd size at Trump's inauguration ranged from 250,000 to 600,000. And that event was held on the National Mall, where there is far more space for people to spread out. Also in 2017, at least 470,000 people were estimated to have showed up for the Women's March near the National Mall in Washington. Estimates for the crowd size at the 1995 Million Man March, which inspired the name of the Million MAGA March, vary widely, ranging between 400,000 and 1.9 million. We reached out to the White House for a comment, but we haven't heard back. McEnany's tweet is inaccurate. We rate it False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more. | [
"104507-proof-00-0da47102ae3db12576d5e03858f60f55.jpg"
]
|
'More than one MILLION marchers for President @realDonaldTrump descend on' Washington, D.C., on Nov. 14. | Contradiction | The Trump administration is ending the same way it started: spreading false claims about crowd sizes in Washington, D.C. On Nov. 14, thousands of President Donald Trump's supporters rallied in Washington to support false claims that he had won re-election. But White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted an alternative estimate of the demonstration's attendance. 'AMAZING! More than one MILLION marchers for President @realDonaldTrump descend on the swamp in support,' McEnany said in the tweet, which has been shared more than 56,000 times. The post took us back to January 2017, when Trump's first press secretary, Sean Spicer, claimed the crowd at Trump's inauguration 'was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period.' We rated that claim Pants on Fire! Since Trump retweeted a claim that more than a million people gathered in Washington to support him, we wanted to take a closer look at McEnany's tweet. (Screenshot from Twitter) The claim is wrong. News outlets that covered the protests estimated that thousands, not more than 1 million, attended them. It's mathematically impossible for more than 135,000 people to fit in the location that McEnany tweeted a photo of. On the morning of Nov. 14, several concurrent events - including the Million MAGA March, the March for Trump and Stop the Steal DC - converged near Freedom Plaza in Washington. Among the demonstrators were conspiracy theorists, right-wing activists alleging widespread election fraud and members of the Proud Boys, a far right, all-male group with a history of violent confrontations. Several Washington news outlets estimated that the pro-Trump demonstrations had thousands of attendees. Trump himself has tweeted various estimates of the crowd size, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. Women for America First, one of the groups that demonstrated, secured a National Park Service permit for 10,000 people in Freedom Plaza. Here are a few other estimates of the crowd size on Nov. 14: We asked the Metropolitan Police Department for its best estimate of the attendance at the weekend's Washington-area demonstrations, which grew violent toward the end of the day when hundreds of counterprotesters showed up. Brianna Jordan, a public affairs specialist, said the MPD 'does not provide numbers on crowd size.' It's difficult to gauge crowd size, and estimates are just that - estimates. But there is no evidence that more than 1 million people attended pro-Trump demonstrations in Washington over the weekend. In her tweet, McEnany included two screenshots of a Fox News broadcast about the gatherings. The footage shows demonstrators on a street near Freedom Plaza, which is a few blocks east of the White House, a little after 11 a.m. Eastern Time. McEnany tweeted her estimate at 11:16 a.m. ET, before the marches were officially set to begin at noon. It's also not possible for more than 135,000 people to fit into Freedom Plaza and the surrounding streets and sidewalks, according to MapChecking, an online tool that uses a mathematical equation to estimate how many people can fit in a given location. The stills that McEnany shared show plenty of space between demonstrators. For there to be 105,000 people depicted in the photos, which MapChecking classifies as 'packed' for the location, there would have to have been four people per square meter. The National Park Service says the maximum capacity for Freedom Plaza is 13,900. For comparison, estimates of the crowd size at Trump's inauguration ranged from 250,000 to 600,000. And that event was held on the National Mall, where there is far more space for people to spread out. Also in 2017, at least 470,000 people were estimated to have showed up for the Women's March near the National Mall in Washington. Estimates for the crowd size at the 1995 Million Man March, which inspired the name of the Million MAGA March, vary widely, ranging between 400,000 and 1.9 million. We reached out to the White House for a comment, but we haven't heard back. McEnany's tweet is inaccurate. We rate it False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more. | The post took us back to January 2017, when Trump's first press secretary, Sean Spicer, claimed the crowd at Trump's inauguration 'was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period.' We rated that claim Pants on Fire! Since Trump retweeted a claim that more than a million people gathered in Washington to support him, we wanted to take a closer look at McEnany's tweet. (Screenshot from Twitter) The claim is wrong. News outlets that covered the protests estimated that thousands, not more than 1 million, attended them. It's mathematically impossible for more than 135,000 people to fit in the location that McEnany tweeted a photo of. On the morning of Nov. 14, several concurrent events - including the Million MAGA March, the March for Trump and Stop the Steal DC - converged near Freedom Plaza in Washington. Among the demonstrators were conspiracy theorists, right-wing activists alleging widespread election fraud and members of the Proud Boys, a far right, all-male group with a history of violent confrontations. Several Washington news outlets estimated that the pro-Trump demonstrations had thousands of attendees. Trump himself has tweeted various estimates of the crowd size, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. Women for America First, one of the groups that demonstrated, secured a National Park Service permit for 10,000 people in Freedom Plaza. Here are a few other estimates of the crowd size on Nov. 14: Fox News: 'Tens of thousands' The Washington Post: 'Thousands' WUSA: 'Thousands' Featured Fact-check Aaron Rodgers stated on November 5, 2021 in an interview on the Pat McAfee Show 'This idea that it's the pandemic of the unvaccinated, it's just a total lie.' By Gabrielle Settles • November 8, 2021 WTOP: 'Thousands' CNN: 'Thousands' USA Today: 'Tens of thousands' The Washington Times: 'Thousands' Washingtonian: 'Thousands' We asked the Metropolitan Police Department for its best estimate of the attendance at the weekend's Washington-area demonstrations, which grew violent toward the end of the day when hundreds of counterprotesters showed up. Brianna Jordan, a public affairs specialist, said the MPD 'does not provide numbers on crowd size.' It's difficult to gauge crowd size, and estimates are just that - estimates. But there is no evidence that more than 1 million people attended pro-Trump demonstrations in Washington over the weekend. In her tweet, McEnany included two screenshots of a Fox News broadcast about the gatherings. The footage shows demonstrators on a street near Freedom Plaza, which is a few blocks east of the White House, a little after 11 a.m. Eastern Time. McEnany tweeted her estimate at 11:16 a.m. ET, before the marches were officially set to begin at noon. It's also not possible for more than 135,000 people to fit into Freedom Plaza and the surrounding streets and sidewalks, according to MapChecking, an online tool that uses a mathematical equation to estimate how many people can fit in a given location. The stills that McEnany shared show plenty of space between demonstrators. For there to be 105,000 people depicted in the photos, which MapChecking classifies as 'packed' for the location, there would have to have been four people per square meter. The National Park Service says the maximum capacity for Freedom Plaza is 13,900. For comparison, estimates of the crowd size at Trump's inauguration ranged from 250,000 to 600,000. And that event was held on the National Mall, where there is far more space for people to spread out. Also in 2017, at least 470,000 people were estimated to have showed up for the Women's March near the National Mall in Washington. Estimates for the crowd size at the 1995 Million Man March, which inspired the name of the Million MAGA March, vary widely, ranging between 400,000 and 1.9 million. We reached out to the White House for a comment, but we haven't heard back. McEnany's tweet is inaccurate. We rate it False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more. | [
"104507-proof-00-0da47102ae3db12576d5e03858f60f55.jpg"
]
|
Facebook tried to 'shut down' the campaign to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom. | Contradiction | A conservative blog falsely claimed Facebook tried to 'shut down' the campaign to recall Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom when the social media company stopped running political advertisements. In reality, Facebook stopped accepting political ads regardless of party affiliation last fall to curb misinformation. No one campaign was singled out. In mid-December, the company made an exception to the ban when it allowed ads in the three weeks leading up to the U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia and then resumed the ban last month. Still, RedState.org published an article Jan. 28 with the headline: 'Facebook Says No More Ads for Movement To Recall Gavin Newsom.' The Newsom recall campaign shared the blog on its Instagram account early this week. Randy Economy, a spokesperson for the recall campaign, said he would review the post but did not respond to questions about why the campaign shared it. The article in question includes a subheadline visible on social media that claims Facebook is 'Attempting to shut down a fully legal recall effort because ... cronyism?' It offers no evidence for that allegation. A screen shot of the RedState.com article and claim. This post was flagged as part of PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook to fact-check false news on the social media platform. However, Facebook played no role in selecting the fact check or its rating. Our Research Along with making the claim about shutting down the recall, the RedState.com article goes on to allege Mark Zukerberg, Facebook's chief executive officer, 'has sought out to silence dissent against his comrades in the Democrat party,' following the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol by Trump extremists. Following the insurrection, Facebook blocked content posted to the #StormTheCapitol hashtag, according to a TechCrunch article. The article went on to say that Facebook representatives pledged to remove content praising the Trump supporters who infiltrated the U.S. Capitol as well as any other 'incitement or encouragement' of the events, including photos and videos from the individuals' perspectives. Still, Devon Kearns, a Facebook spokesperson, wrote in an email that last year's decision to pause political ads had nothing to do with the Newsom recall campaign. 'If they are unable to run ads relating to recalling Newsom, it is because of the ban on ads about social issues, elections or politics that has now been in place for over two months,' he wrote. The ban does not prevent political campaigns from publishing 'organic' posts, or non-paid content. It means they can't pay to post advertisements which are boosted by Facebook's advertising algorithms and shared across the platform, including to those who do not follow the recall campaign. Here's how Zuckerberg explained his decision to stop running ads last year. 'It's important that campaigns can run get out the vote campaigns, and I generally believe the best antidote to bad speech is more speech, but in the final days of an election there may not be enough time to contest new claims,' he wrote in a September 2020 Facebook post. Despite the pause on Facebook ads, the recall campaign maintains a strong presence on the social media platform, including a public group where nearly 21,000 members share information about upcoming recall drives along with news and opinion articles about the governor. It has another 16,000 followers on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, and more than 10,000 followers on Twitter. In recent months, the recall effort has gained momentum as Newsom's administration has struggled to control numerous health and economic crises, most recently the slow distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. More than one-third of California voters, or 36%, support recalling Newsom, while 45% are opposed, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies survey released this week. To qualify the recall for a future ballot, the campaign must submit approximately 1.5 million signatures of registered voters to county elections officials by March 17, all of which must be verified. Proponents say they have gathered more than 1.3 million signatures. Last month, California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks described the effort to recall Newsom as 'the California coup.' We rated that ridiculous claim Pants on Fire. A coup is a violent overthrow of a government. A recall is a legally sanctioned effort to vote an elected official out of office midway through their term. It's been part of California's constitution for more than a century. Conservatives have expressed distrust in Facebook and other social media companies, alleging they censor or diminish right-wing political speech. Facebook, Twitter and a host of other companies banned President Donald Trump from their platforms last month after he encouraged his supporters to 'fight like hell' and to march to the Capitol. Shortly after, a mob of extremists assaulted police officers and breached the building in a riot that left five people dead, including one U.S. Capitol police officer. Our Ruling A conservative blog alleged Facebook tried to 'shut down' the campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom by refusing to run its advertisements. That's not what happened. Facebook stopped accepting political ads regardless of party last fall to slow false information on its platform, though it made an exception by allowing ads to run in the U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia before resuming the ban. It did not single out the recall campaign, which maintains a strong presence on Facebook and has gained momentum in recent months. The blog misleads with the headline, 'Facebook Says No More Ads for Movement To Recall Gavin Newsom.' The subheadline goes further with the unsubstantiated and outlandish allegation that Facebook tried to 'shut down' the recall campaign altogether. We rate that claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | Our Ruling A conservative blog alleged Facebook tried to 'shut down' the campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom by refusing to run its advertisements. That's not what happened. Facebook stopped accepting political ads regardless of party last fall to slow false information on its platform, though it made an exception by allowing ads to run in the U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia before resuming the ban. It did not single out the recall campaign, which maintains a strong presence on Facebook and has gained momentum in recent months. The blog misleads with the headline, 'Facebook Says No More Ads for Movement To Recall Gavin Newsom.' The subheadline goes further with the unsubstantiated and outlandish allegation that Facebook tried to 'shut down' the recall campaign altogether. We rate that claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | [
"104509-proof-09-36432e190bbff16ab774db09a9280dad.jpg"
]
|
Facebook tried to 'shut down' the campaign to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom. | Contradiction | A conservative blog falsely claimed Facebook tried to 'shut down' the campaign to recall Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom when the social media company stopped running political advertisements. In reality, Facebook stopped accepting political ads regardless of party affiliation last fall to curb misinformation. No one campaign was singled out. In mid-December, the company made an exception to the ban when it allowed ads in the three weeks leading up to the U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia and then resumed the ban last month. Still, RedState.org published an article Jan. 28 with the headline: 'Facebook Says No More Ads for Movement To Recall Gavin Newsom.' The Newsom recall campaign shared the blog on its Instagram account early this week. Randy Economy, a spokesperson for the recall campaign, said he would review the post but did not respond to questions about why the campaign shared it. The article in question includes a subheadline visible on social media that claims Facebook is 'Attempting to shut down a fully legal recall effort because ... cronyism?' It offers no evidence for that allegation. A screen shot of the RedState.com article and claim. This post was flagged as part of PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook to fact-check false news on the social media platform. However, Facebook played no role in selecting the fact check or its rating. Our Research Along with making the claim about shutting down the recall, the RedState.com article goes on to allege Mark Zukerberg, Facebook's chief executive officer, 'has sought out to silence dissent against his comrades in the Democrat party,' following the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol by Trump extremists. Following the insurrection, Facebook blocked content posted to the #StormTheCapitol hashtag, according to a TechCrunch article. The article went on to say that Facebook representatives pledged to remove content praising the Trump supporters who infiltrated the U.S. Capitol as well as any other 'incitement or encouragement' of the events, including photos and videos from the individuals' perspectives. Still, Devon Kearns, a Facebook spokesperson, wrote in an email that last year's decision to pause political ads had nothing to do with the Newsom recall campaign. 'If they are unable to run ads relating to recalling Newsom, it is because of the ban on ads about social issues, elections or politics that has now been in place for over two months,' he wrote. The ban does not prevent political campaigns from publishing 'organic' posts, or non-paid content. It means they can't pay to post advertisements which are boosted by Facebook's advertising algorithms and shared across the platform, including to those who do not follow the recall campaign. Here's how Zuckerberg explained his decision to stop running ads last year. 'It's important that campaigns can run get out the vote campaigns, and I generally believe the best antidote to bad speech is more speech, but in the final days of an election there may not be enough time to contest new claims,' he wrote in a September 2020 Facebook post. Despite the pause on Facebook ads, the recall campaign maintains a strong presence on the social media platform, including a public group where nearly 21,000 members share information about upcoming recall drives along with news and opinion articles about the governor. It has another 16,000 followers on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, and more than 10,000 followers on Twitter. In recent months, the recall effort has gained momentum as Newsom's administration has struggled to control numerous health and economic crises, most recently the slow distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. More than one-third of California voters, or 36%, support recalling Newsom, while 45% are opposed, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies survey released this week. To qualify the recall for a future ballot, the campaign must submit approximately 1.5 million signatures of registered voters to county elections officials by March 17, all of which must be verified. Proponents say they have gathered more than 1.3 million signatures. Last month, California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks described the effort to recall Newsom as 'the California coup.' We rated that ridiculous claim Pants on Fire. A coup is a violent overthrow of a government. A recall is a legally sanctioned effort to vote an elected official out of office midway through their term. It's been part of California's constitution for more than a century. Conservatives have expressed distrust in Facebook and other social media companies, alleging they censor or diminish right-wing political speech. Facebook, Twitter and a host of other companies banned President Donald Trump from their platforms last month after he encouraged his supporters to 'fight like hell' and to march to the Capitol. Shortly after, a mob of extremists assaulted police officers and breached the building in a riot that left five people dead, including one U.S. Capitol police officer. Our Ruling A conservative blog alleged Facebook tried to 'shut down' the campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom by refusing to run its advertisements. That's not what happened. Facebook stopped accepting political ads regardless of party last fall to slow false information on its platform, though it made an exception by allowing ads to run in the U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia before resuming the ban. It did not single out the recall campaign, which maintains a strong presence on Facebook and has gained momentum in recent months. The blog misleads with the headline, 'Facebook Says No More Ads for Movement To Recall Gavin Newsom.' The subheadline goes further with the unsubstantiated and outlandish allegation that Facebook tried to 'shut down' the recall campaign altogether. We rate that claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | Our Ruling A conservative blog alleged Facebook tried to 'shut down' the campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom by refusing to run its advertisements. That's not what happened. Facebook stopped accepting political ads regardless of party last fall to slow false information on its platform, though it made an exception by allowing ads to run in the U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia before resuming the ban. It did not single out the recall campaign, which maintains a strong presence on Facebook and has gained momentum in recent months. The blog misleads with the headline, 'Facebook Says No More Ads for Movement To Recall Gavin Newsom.' The subheadline goes further with the unsubstantiated and outlandish allegation that Facebook tried to 'shut down' the recall campaign altogether. We rate that claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | [
"104509-proof-09-36432e190bbff16ab774db09a9280dad.jpg"
]
|
Facebook tried to 'shut down' the campaign to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom. | Contradiction | A conservative blog falsely claimed Facebook tried to 'shut down' the campaign to recall Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom when the social media company stopped running political advertisements. In reality, Facebook stopped accepting political ads regardless of party affiliation last fall to curb misinformation. No one campaign was singled out. In mid-December, the company made an exception to the ban when it allowed ads in the three weeks leading up to the U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia and then resumed the ban last month. Still, RedState.org published an article Jan. 28 with the headline: 'Facebook Says No More Ads for Movement To Recall Gavin Newsom.' The Newsom recall campaign shared the blog on its Instagram account early this week. Randy Economy, a spokesperson for the recall campaign, said he would review the post but did not respond to questions about why the campaign shared it. The article in question includes a subheadline visible on social media that claims Facebook is 'Attempting to shut down a fully legal recall effort because ... cronyism?' It offers no evidence for that allegation. A screen shot of the RedState.com article and claim. This post was flagged as part of PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook to fact-check false news on the social media platform. However, Facebook played no role in selecting the fact check or its rating. Our Research Along with making the claim about shutting down the recall, the RedState.com article goes on to allege Mark Zukerberg, Facebook's chief executive officer, 'has sought out to silence dissent against his comrades in the Democrat party,' following the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol by Trump extremists. Following the insurrection, Facebook blocked content posted to the #StormTheCapitol hashtag, according to a TechCrunch article. The article went on to say that Facebook representatives pledged to remove content praising the Trump supporters who infiltrated the U.S. Capitol as well as any other 'incitement or encouragement' of the events, including photos and videos from the individuals' perspectives. Still, Devon Kearns, a Facebook spokesperson, wrote in an email that last year's decision to pause political ads had nothing to do with the Newsom recall campaign. 'If they are unable to run ads relating to recalling Newsom, it is because of the ban on ads about social issues, elections or politics that has now been in place for over two months,' he wrote. The ban does not prevent political campaigns from publishing 'organic' posts, or non-paid content. It means they can't pay to post advertisements which are boosted by Facebook's advertising algorithms and shared across the platform, including to those who do not follow the recall campaign. Here's how Zuckerberg explained his decision to stop running ads last year. 'It's important that campaigns can run get out the vote campaigns, and I generally believe the best antidote to bad speech is more speech, but in the final days of an election there may not be enough time to contest new claims,' he wrote in a September 2020 Facebook post. Despite the pause on Facebook ads, the recall campaign maintains a strong presence on the social media platform, including a public group where nearly 21,000 members share information about upcoming recall drives along with news and opinion articles about the governor. It has another 16,000 followers on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, and more than 10,000 followers on Twitter. In recent months, the recall effort has gained momentum as Newsom's administration has struggled to control numerous health and economic crises, most recently the slow distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. More than one-third of California voters, or 36%, support recalling Newsom, while 45% are opposed, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies survey released this week. To qualify the recall for a future ballot, the campaign must submit approximately 1.5 million signatures of registered voters to county elections officials by March 17, all of which must be verified. Proponents say they have gathered more than 1.3 million signatures. Last month, California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks described the effort to recall Newsom as 'the California coup.' We rated that ridiculous claim Pants on Fire. A coup is a violent overthrow of a government. A recall is a legally sanctioned effort to vote an elected official out of office midway through their term. It's been part of California's constitution for more than a century. Conservatives have expressed distrust in Facebook and other social media companies, alleging they censor or diminish right-wing political speech. Facebook, Twitter and a host of other companies banned President Donald Trump from their platforms last month after he encouraged his supporters to 'fight like hell' and to march to the Capitol. Shortly after, a mob of extremists assaulted police officers and breached the building in a riot that left five people dead, including one U.S. Capitol police officer. Our Ruling A conservative blog alleged Facebook tried to 'shut down' the campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom by refusing to run its advertisements. That's not what happened. Facebook stopped accepting political ads regardless of party last fall to slow false information on its platform, though it made an exception by allowing ads to run in the U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia before resuming the ban. It did not single out the recall campaign, which maintains a strong presence on Facebook and has gained momentum in recent months. The blog misleads with the headline, 'Facebook Says No More Ads for Movement To Recall Gavin Newsom.' The subheadline goes further with the unsubstantiated and outlandish allegation that Facebook tried to 'shut down' the recall campaign altogether. We rate that claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | Our Ruling A conservative blog alleged Facebook tried to 'shut down' the campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom by refusing to run its advertisements. That's not what happened. Facebook stopped accepting political ads regardless of party last fall to slow false information on its platform, though it made an exception by allowing ads to run in the U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia before resuming the ban. It did not single out the recall campaign, which maintains a strong presence on Facebook and has gained momentum in recent months. The blog misleads with the headline, 'Facebook Says No More Ads for Movement To Recall Gavin Newsom.' The subheadline goes further with the unsubstantiated and outlandish allegation that Facebook tried to 'shut down' the recall campaign altogether. We rate that claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | [
"104509-proof-09-36432e190bbff16ab774db09a9280dad.jpg"
]
|
Says Sen. Thom Tillis 'doesn't think restaurant workers should have to wash their hands. | Contradiction | The novel coronavirus outbreak has prompted renewed attention on controversial comments Thom Tillis made in 2015. Tillis is the Republican incumbent running for U.S. Senate in North Carolina. He faces a challenge from Democrat Cal Cunningham in one of the most competitive Senate races in the country. A new TV ad from Majority Forward PAC takes the senator's old comments and presents them in the context of the pandemic. The ad highlights Tillis' comments on regulation and hand washing. But it doesn't play the audio. Instead, a narrator says: 'He doesn't think restaurant workers should have to wash their hands.' An Asheville Citizen-Times headline appears on the screen: 'Tillis: Restaurant workers shouldn't have to wash hands.' That's a reference to the paper's article about Tillis' comments. But did Tillis really say that? The attack ad is misleading. Comments from 2015 Tillis talked about handwashing on Feb. 3, 2015 at an event of the Bipartisan Policy Center. A clip from the event is available on C-SPAN's website. At the event, Tillis recalled a conversation he had with a friend. He said they were sitting in a Starbucks when an opportunity presented itself to make a point about business regulations in the U.S. Here's part of the transcript: 'And at that time we were sitting back at a table that was near the restrooms and one of the employees just came out. She said, 'For example, don't you believe that this regulation that requires this gentleman to wash his hands before he serves your food is important, should be on the books?' I said, as a matter of fact, I think it's one that I can illustrate the point. 'I don't have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy, as long as they post a sign that says, 'We don't require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom.' The market will take care of that. 'It's one example - but then let them decide. Now that's probably one where every business that did that would go out of business, but I think it's good to illustrate the point that that's the sort of mentality that we have to have to reduce the regulatory burden on this country.' There's an important distinction that needs to be made here. Tillis never said restaurant employees shouldn't be required to wash their hands. Tillis said he would be fine if the government didn't require employees to wash their hands. Under the fictional scenario Tillis presented, businesses could choose to have a handwashing policy. And if businesses disclosed that they didn't require employee handwashing, Tillis said they would likely go out of business. In other words, Tillis argued that regulations aren't needed because market forces would prompt business owners to do the right thing. He offered an opinion on business regulations, not the health benefits of hand washing. Other comments Another misleading aspect of the ad is that it mentions Tillis' handwashing comments in the present tense. The beginning of the ad shows someone washing their hands. A narrator says: 'Everyone does it. Especially now. Well, maybe not everyone.' Then it shows a photo of Tillis. But Tillis clarified his 2015 comments shortly after making them. In an interview with The Hill in 2015, Tillis said his comments weren't meant to be taken seriously. 'Of course (handwashing) needs to be regulated,' Tillis said. 'If you noticed it was one of the instances at the very tail end, it was clearly meant as a joke. Even (the moderator) at the end said, 'Well, now I'm not sure I should shake your hand.' It was just fun.' In an interview with HuffPost, he blamed any controversy on a blogger 'without a sense of humor.' It's also inaccurate to suggest that Tillis hasn't encouraged handwashing during the pandemic. On April 6, he told Fox 8: 'If we want to get out of this sooner, then everybody in North Carolina needs to make sure they're staying at home, social distancing, washing their hands, all the things that they're being asked to do every single day.' He made the same point in a tweet the next day. Asked about the ad, Majority Forward spokeswoman Rachel Irwin said the old Tillis comments are 'fair game.' 'North Carolinians deserve to know that Tillis holds such extreme views, especially during a pandemic when their health and safety are further at risk,' Irwin said. 'I think health and safety experts would agree that his view is problematic and he should have to answer for it.' | Our ruling The ad says Tillis 'doesn't think restaurant workers should have to wash their hands.' He never said restaurant workers shouldn't wash their hands. In context, he was saying he didn't think the government needed to regulate handwashing at restaurants, because customers would stop going if that happened. He later reversed that statement, saying 'of course' it needs to be regulated. What's more, his 2015 comments had nothing to do with the pandemic. During the pandemic, Tillis has held up hand washing as an important public response. The ad is inaccurate, so we rate it False. | [
"104520-proof-36-d5e56235c6db55730bda96f2771a238c.jpg"
]
|
Says Sen. Thom Tillis 'doesn't think restaurant workers should have to wash their hands. | Contradiction | The novel coronavirus outbreak has prompted renewed attention on controversial comments Thom Tillis made in 2015. Tillis is the Republican incumbent running for U.S. Senate in North Carolina. He faces a challenge from Democrat Cal Cunningham in one of the most competitive Senate races in the country. A new TV ad from Majority Forward PAC takes the senator's old comments and presents them in the context of the pandemic. The ad highlights Tillis' comments on regulation and hand washing. But it doesn't play the audio. Instead, a narrator says: 'He doesn't think restaurant workers should have to wash their hands.' An Asheville Citizen-Times headline appears on the screen: 'Tillis: Restaurant workers shouldn't have to wash hands.' That's a reference to the paper's article about Tillis' comments. But did Tillis really say that? The attack ad is misleading. Comments from 2015 Tillis talked about handwashing on Feb. 3, 2015 at an event of the Bipartisan Policy Center. A clip from the event is available on C-SPAN's website. At the event, Tillis recalled a conversation he had with a friend. He said they were sitting in a Starbucks when an opportunity presented itself to make a point about business regulations in the U.S. Here's part of the transcript: 'And at that time we were sitting back at a table that was near the restrooms and one of the employees just came out. She said, 'For example, don't you believe that this regulation that requires this gentleman to wash his hands before he serves your food is important, should be on the books?' I said, as a matter of fact, I think it's one that I can illustrate the point. 'I don't have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy, as long as they post a sign that says, 'We don't require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom.' The market will take care of that. 'It's one example - but then let them decide. Now that's probably one where every business that did that would go out of business, but I think it's good to illustrate the point that that's the sort of mentality that we have to have to reduce the regulatory burden on this country.' There's an important distinction that needs to be made here. Tillis never said restaurant employees shouldn't be required to wash their hands. Tillis said he would be fine if the government didn't require employees to wash their hands. Under the fictional scenario Tillis presented, businesses could choose to have a handwashing policy. And if businesses disclosed that they didn't require employee handwashing, Tillis said they would likely go out of business. In other words, Tillis argued that regulations aren't needed because market forces would prompt business owners to do the right thing. He offered an opinion on business regulations, not the health benefits of hand washing. Other comments Another misleading aspect of the ad is that it mentions Tillis' handwashing comments in the present tense. The beginning of the ad shows someone washing their hands. A narrator says: 'Everyone does it. Especially now. Well, maybe not everyone.' Then it shows a photo of Tillis. But Tillis clarified his 2015 comments shortly after making them. In an interview with The Hill in 2015, Tillis said his comments weren't meant to be taken seriously. 'Of course (handwashing) needs to be regulated,' Tillis said. 'If you noticed it was one of the instances at the very tail end, it was clearly meant as a joke. Even (the moderator) at the end said, 'Well, now I'm not sure I should shake your hand.' It was just fun.' In an interview with HuffPost, he blamed any controversy on a blogger 'without a sense of humor.' It's also inaccurate to suggest that Tillis hasn't encouraged handwashing during the pandemic. On April 6, he told Fox 8: 'If we want to get out of this sooner, then everybody in North Carolina needs to make sure they're staying at home, social distancing, washing their hands, all the things that they're being asked to do every single day.' He made the same point in a tweet the next day. Asked about the ad, Majority Forward spokeswoman Rachel Irwin said the old Tillis comments are 'fair game.' 'North Carolinians deserve to know that Tillis holds such extreme views, especially during a pandemic when their health and safety are further at risk,' Irwin said. 'I think health and safety experts would agree that his view is problematic and he should have to answer for it.' | Our ruling The ad says Tillis 'doesn't think restaurant workers should have to wash their hands.' He never said restaurant workers shouldn't wash their hands. In context, he was saying he didn't think the government needed to regulate handwashing at restaurants, because customers would stop going if that happened. He later reversed that statement, saying 'of course' it needs to be regulated. What's more, his 2015 comments had nothing to do with the pandemic. During the pandemic, Tillis has held up hand washing as an important public response. The ad is inaccurate, so we rate it False. | [
"104520-proof-36-d5e56235c6db55730bda96f2771a238c.jpg"
]
|
Says Sen. Thom Tillis 'doesn't think restaurant workers should have to wash their hands. | Contradiction | The novel coronavirus outbreak has prompted renewed attention on controversial comments Thom Tillis made in 2015. Tillis is the Republican incumbent running for U.S. Senate in North Carolina. He faces a challenge from Democrat Cal Cunningham in one of the most competitive Senate races in the country. A new TV ad from Majority Forward PAC takes the senator's old comments and presents them in the context of the pandemic. The ad highlights Tillis' comments on regulation and hand washing. But it doesn't play the audio. Instead, a narrator says: 'He doesn't think restaurant workers should have to wash their hands.' An Asheville Citizen-Times headline appears on the screen: 'Tillis: Restaurant workers shouldn't have to wash hands.' That's a reference to the paper's article about Tillis' comments. But did Tillis really say that? The attack ad is misleading. Comments from 2015 Tillis talked about handwashing on Feb. 3, 2015 at an event of the Bipartisan Policy Center. A clip from the event is available on C-SPAN's website. At the event, Tillis recalled a conversation he had with a friend. He said they were sitting in a Starbucks when an opportunity presented itself to make a point about business regulations in the U.S. Here's part of the transcript: 'And at that time we were sitting back at a table that was near the restrooms and one of the employees just came out. She said, 'For example, don't you believe that this regulation that requires this gentleman to wash his hands before he serves your food is important, should be on the books?' I said, as a matter of fact, I think it's one that I can illustrate the point. 'I don't have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy, as long as they post a sign that says, 'We don't require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom.' The market will take care of that. 'It's one example - but then let them decide. Now that's probably one where every business that did that would go out of business, but I think it's good to illustrate the point that that's the sort of mentality that we have to have to reduce the regulatory burden on this country.' There's an important distinction that needs to be made here. Tillis never said restaurant employees shouldn't be required to wash their hands. Tillis said he would be fine if the government didn't require employees to wash their hands. Under the fictional scenario Tillis presented, businesses could choose to have a handwashing policy. And if businesses disclosed that they didn't require employee handwashing, Tillis said they would likely go out of business. In other words, Tillis argued that regulations aren't needed because market forces would prompt business owners to do the right thing. He offered an opinion on business regulations, not the health benefits of hand washing. Other comments Another misleading aspect of the ad is that it mentions Tillis' handwashing comments in the present tense. The beginning of the ad shows someone washing their hands. A narrator says: 'Everyone does it. Especially now. Well, maybe not everyone.' Then it shows a photo of Tillis. But Tillis clarified his 2015 comments shortly after making them. In an interview with The Hill in 2015, Tillis said his comments weren't meant to be taken seriously. 'Of course (handwashing) needs to be regulated,' Tillis said. 'If you noticed it was one of the instances at the very tail end, it was clearly meant as a joke. Even (the moderator) at the end said, 'Well, now I'm not sure I should shake your hand.' It was just fun.' In an interview with HuffPost, he blamed any controversy on a blogger 'without a sense of humor.' It's also inaccurate to suggest that Tillis hasn't encouraged handwashing during the pandemic. On April 6, he told Fox 8: 'If we want to get out of this sooner, then everybody in North Carolina needs to make sure they're staying at home, social distancing, washing their hands, all the things that they're being asked to do every single day.' He made the same point in a tweet the next day. Asked about the ad, Majority Forward spokeswoman Rachel Irwin said the old Tillis comments are 'fair game.' 'North Carolinians deserve to know that Tillis holds such extreme views, especially during a pandemic when their health and safety are further at risk,' Irwin said. 'I think health and safety experts would agree that his view is problematic and he should have to answer for it.' | Our ruling The ad says Tillis 'doesn't think restaurant workers should have to wash their hands.' He never said restaurant workers shouldn't wash their hands. In context, he was saying he didn't think the government needed to regulate handwashing at restaurants, because customers would stop going if that happened. He later reversed that statement, saying 'of course' it needs to be regulated. What's more, his 2015 comments had nothing to do with the pandemic. During the pandemic, Tillis has held up hand washing as an important public response. The ad is inaccurate, so we rate it False. | [
"104520-proof-36-d5e56235c6db55730bda96f2771a238c.jpg"
]
|
'When I came into office, the prior administration had contracted for not nearly enough vaccine to cover adults in America. | Contradiction | During a March 2 news conference on the COVID-19 pandemic, President Joe Biden claimed that former President Donald Trump's administration did not ensure there would be enough vaccines for the American public. 'When I came into office, the prior administration had contracted for not nearly enough vaccine to cover adults in America,' said Biden. 'We rectified that.' Biden then announced he was using the Defense Production Act to facilitate a partnership between two competing drug companies: Merck had agreed to help manufacture the recently authorized Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The move, he said, would accelerate the timeline for the availability of vaccines to the American public: 'We're now on track to have enough vaccine supply for every adult in America by the end of May,' he said, two months earlier than he had previously projected. It's been a common political message since the Biden administration took office that the initial vaccine rollout under Trump was 'chaotic.' PolitiFact previously rated a claim by Biden's chief of staff, Ron Klain, that the Trump administration left no vaccine plan behind as Mostly False. So, we thought it was important to check whether Biden was going too far in alleging that the Trump administration hadn't contracted for enough vaccines to cover the American public. Let's see what the contracts, which are public documents, say. The Operation Warp Speed contracts and FDA's process As part of Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration entered into contracts with multiple drugmakers. The contracts were generally signed while potential vaccines were still in clinical trials. Experts told us this was smart, because the Trump administration didn't know what vaccines from which drugmakers would work, how effective they would be or how quickly they could be produced. 'That was the whole approach of Operation Warp Speed,' said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. 'Not knowing which one would cross the finish line, the Trump administration took a portfolio approach and invested in multiple vaccines.' Here's what the Trump administration's initial contracts called for drug makers to supply to the U.S. government: Pfizer-BioNTech: 100 million doses (2 dose regimen) Moderna: 100 million doses (2 dose regimen) Johnson & Johnson: 100 million doses (1 dose regimen) AstraZeneca: 300 million doses (2 dose regimen) Novavax: 100 million doses (2 dose regimen) Sanofi-GlaxoSmithKline: 100 million doses (1 or 2 dose regimen) In total, the amounts agreed to under these contracts equal about 800 million vaccine doses, or enough for more than 400 million people. The U.S., based on U.S. Census estimates, has around 328 million people, of whom about 255 million are older than 18. (Vaccines are not yet authorized for children.) So it appears that the Trump administration's contracts with drugmakers did cover enough doses to vaccinate the entire U.S. adult population - and then some. By that measure, Biden's statement is inaccurate. An important point to remember, though, is that these contract numbers don't necessarily represent deliverable vaccines. The contracts represent early promises. There were still important hurdles that had to be cleared before these possible vaccine candidates could be a reality. Kevin Gilligan, a senior consultant with Biologics Consulting, a firm focused on pharmaceuticals, said once drugmakers develop a vaccine, they must test it through clinical trials with humans and amass enough data to show the vaccines are safe and effective and cause minimal side effects. The data is then presented to the Food and Drug Administration, which decides whether the vaccine should be authorized for emergency use. Granting an emergency use authorization means the vaccine can then be distributed to the public. Until recently, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were the only two that had reached that point, gaining authorization on Dec. 11 and 18 respectively. The Trump administration announced Dec. 23 that it would buy an additional 200 million doses in total of both companies' vaccines. The caveat worth noting: The real numbers were lower A Biden administration press official told KHN that the president was referring only to orders for the authorized vaccines. 'When the Trump Administration was in office, there were only two approved vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) and the Trump Administration had not contracted for enough of them to vaccinate all Americans. They only had 400 million doses of these authorized vaccines, which is only enough for 200 million Americans. Upon coming into office, one of our first steps was to ensure that we had enough supply secured for every American. We were prepared from Day 1.' On this point, the Biden White House is correct. The U.S. government had in place agreements to buy 400 million doses of the authorized vaccines, which were both two-dose vaccines - not enough for the entire U.S. adult population. It's also true that five days after Biden became president, he announced his administration had reached agreements with Moderna and Pfizer to buy a combined additional 200 million doses. That purchase was finalized on Feb. 11 and brought the total U.S. supply to 600 million doses of authorized vaccines, or enough to vaccinate 300 million people. In addition, on Feb. 27, Johnson & Johnson's vaccine was authorized for emergency use. Under the Operation Warp Speed contract, J&J is supposed to provide 100 million doses to the U.S. by the end of May, but the company is reportedly behind on production. The Biden administration's move to get J&J to team up with Merck to achieve its production goal will increase vaccine supply. But, is it fair for Biden to blame the Trump administration for not buying more of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines once they became authorized for emergency use? The answer to that isn't clear-cut, said the experts. 'It's not totally fair to say the prior administration didn't purchase enough, since they did move to purchase more doses after the vaccine was authorized,' said Jennifer Kates, senior vice president and director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. 'I think the question is should they have purchased it earlier?' The New York Times reported on Dec. 7 that before Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine was shown to be highly effective in clinical trials, the company had offered the U.S. government the option to buy additional doses, but the Trump administration declined. Former Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar disputed the news report, saying during a TV interview that Pfizer hadn't agreed to a production amount or delivery time for the additional vaccine, so he couldn't agree to the deal: 'I'm certainly not going to sign a deal with Pfizer giving them $10 billion to buy vaccine that they could deliver to us five, 10 years hence. That doesn't make any sense.' James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a non-governmental organization that obtained copies of COVID-19 government contracts, agreed that once it was clear the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were likely to receive FDA authorization, the Trump administration could have taken action to make competing drug companies increase their vaccine manufacturing capacity in the way Biden did with Merck and J&J. 'The U.S. could have forced technology transfer between companies, which meant they would have been assured of additional vaccine manufacturing capacity,' said Love. 'The agreements we have now about scaling manufacturing are coming pretty late actually. It takes several months to get stuff up and running.' But Gilligan noted that the Biden administration had the advantage of hindsight. 'Biden inherited the success of vaccine development done under Trump and then expanded on it,' said Gilligan. 'And the Biden administration has the benefit of looking back at what was done well and what wasn't and making the appropriate corrective changes. Hindsight is 20/20.' Overall, there are questions around whether the Trump administration could have acted more quickly to buy doses or increase vaccine manufacturing capacity. And the Biden administration has certainly taken significant measures to expand supplies. But it's stretching the truth to say the Trump administration hadn't contracted for enough Covid vaccines to inoculate the U.S. adult population. | Our ruling Biden said the Trump administration 'had contracted for not nearly enough vaccine to cover adults in America.' While Trump was still in office, his administration had agreements in place to buy 400 million doses of authorized vaccine, or enough to inoculate about 200 million people. That's less than the U.S. adult population. However, KHN/Politifact reviewed the Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed contracts, and found that those included enough vaccine doses that, once cleared for use by the FDA, could inoculate about 550 million people - more than double the U.S. adult population. Biden's statement contains an element of truth, but ignores facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"104526-proof-36-24908318d68b28807ce18186684bc937.jpg"
]
|
'When I came into office, the prior administration had contracted for not nearly enough vaccine to cover adults in America. | Contradiction | During a March 2 news conference on the COVID-19 pandemic, President Joe Biden claimed that former President Donald Trump's administration did not ensure there would be enough vaccines for the American public. 'When I came into office, the prior administration had contracted for not nearly enough vaccine to cover adults in America,' said Biden. 'We rectified that.' Biden then announced he was using the Defense Production Act to facilitate a partnership between two competing drug companies: Merck had agreed to help manufacture the recently authorized Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The move, he said, would accelerate the timeline for the availability of vaccines to the American public: 'We're now on track to have enough vaccine supply for every adult in America by the end of May,' he said, two months earlier than he had previously projected. It's been a common political message since the Biden administration took office that the initial vaccine rollout under Trump was 'chaotic.' PolitiFact previously rated a claim by Biden's chief of staff, Ron Klain, that the Trump administration left no vaccine plan behind as Mostly False. So, we thought it was important to check whether Biden was going too far in alleging that the Trump administration hadn't contracted for enough vaccines to cover the American public. Let's see what the contracts, which are public documents, say. The Operation Warp Speed contracts and FDA's process As part of Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration entered into contracts with multiple drugmakers. The contracts were generally signed while potential vaccines were still in clinical trials. Experts told us this was smart, because the Trump administration didn't know what vaccines from which drugmakers would work, how effective they would be or how quickly they could be produced. 'That was the whole approach of Operation Warp Speed,' said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. 'Not knowing which one would cross the finish line, the Trump administration took a portfolio approach and invested in multiple vaccines.' Here's what the Trump administration's initial contracts called for drug makers to supply to the U.S. government: Pfizer-BioNTech: 100 million doses (2 dose regimen) Moderna: 100 million doses (2 dose regimen) Johnson & Johnson: 100 million doses (1 dose regimen) AstraZeneca: 300 million doses (2 dose regimen) Novavax: 100 million doses (2 dose regimen) Sanofi-GlaxoSmithKline: 100 million doses (1 or 2 dose regimen) In total, the amounts agreed to under these contracts equal about 800 million vaccine doses, or enough for more than 400 million people. The U.S., based on U.S. Census estimates, has around 328 million people, of whom about 255 million are older than 18. (Vaccines are not yet authorized for children.) So it appears that the Trump administration's contracts with drugmakers did cover enough doses to vaccinate the entire U.S. adult population - and then some. By that measure, Biden's statement is inaccurate. An important point to remember, though, is that these contract numbers don't necessarily represent deliverable vaccines. The contracts represent early promises. There were still important hurdles that had to be cleared before these possible vaccine candidates could be a reality. Kevin Gilligan, a senior consultant with Biologics Consulting, a firm focused on pharmaceuticals, said once drugmakers develop a vaccine, they must test it through clinical trials with humans and amass enough data to show the vaccines are safe and effective and cause minimal side effects. The data is then presented to the Food and Drug Administration, which decides whether the vaccine should be authorized for emergency use. Granting an emergency use authorization means the vaccine can then be distributed to the public. Until recently, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were the only two that had reached that point, gaining authorization on Dec. 11 and 18 respectively. The Trump administration announced Dec. 23 that it would buy an additional 200 million doses in total of both companies' vaccines. The caveat worth noting: The real numbers were lower A Biden administration press official told KHN that the president was referring only to orders for the authorized vaccines. 'When the Trump Administration was in office, there were only two approved vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) and the Trump Administration had not contracted for enough of them to vaccinate all Americans. They only had 400 million doses of these authorized vaccines, which is only enough for 200 million Americans. Upon coming into office, one of our first steps was to ensure that we had enough supply secured for every American. We were prepared from Day 1.' On this point, the Biden White House is correct. The U.S. government had in place agreements to buy 400 million doses of the authorized vaccines, which were both two-dose vaccines - not enough for the entire U.S. adult population. It's also true that five days after Biden became president, he announced his administration had reached agreements with Moderna and Pfizer to buy a combined additional 200 million doses. That purchase was finalized on Feb. 11 and brought the total U.S. supply to 600 million doses of authorized vaccines, or enough to vaccinate 300 million people. In addition, on Feb. 27, Johnson & Johnson's vaccine was authorized for emergency use. Under the Operation Warp Speed contract, J&J is supposed to provide 100 million doses to the U.S. by the end of May, but the company is reportedly behind on production. The Biden administration's move to get J&J to team up with Merck to achieve its production goal will increase vaccine supply. But, is it fair for Biden to blame the Trump administration for not buying more of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines once they became authorized for emergency use? The answer to that isn't clear-cut, said the experts. 'It's not totally fair to say the prior administration didn't purchase enough, since they did move to purchase more doses after the vaccine was authorized,' said Jennifer Kates, senior vice president and director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. 'I think the question is should they have purchased it earlier?' The New York Times reported on Dec. 7 that before Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine was shown to be highly effective in clinical trials, the company had offered the U.S. government the option to buy additional doses, but the Trump administration declined. Former Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar disputed the news report, saying during a TV interview that Pfizer hadn't agreed to a production amount or delivery time for the additional vaccine, so he couldn't agree to the deal: 'I'm certainly not going to sign a deal with Pfizer giving them $10 billion to buy vaccine that they could deliver to us five, 10 years hence. That doesn't make any sense.' James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a non-governmental organization that obtained copies of COVID-19 government contracts, agreed that once it was clear the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were likely to receive FDA authorization, the Trump administration could have taken action to make competing drug companies increase their vaccine manufacturing capacity in the way Biden did with Merck and J&J. 'The U.S. could have forced technology transfer between companies, which meant they would have been assured of additional vaccine manufacturing capacity,' said Love. 'The agreements we have now about scaling manufacturing are coming pretty late actually. It takes several months to get stuff up and running.' But Gilligan noted that the Biden administration had the advantage of hindsight. 'Biden inherited the success of vaccine development done under Trump and then expanded on it,' said Gilligan. 'And the Biden administration has the benefit of looking back at what was done well and what wasn't and making the appropriate corrective changes. Hindsight is 20/20.' Overall, there are questions around whether the Trump administration could have acted more quickly to buy doses or increase vaccine manufacturing capacity. And the Biden administration has certainly taken significant measures to expand supplies. But it's stretching the truth to say the Trump administration hadn't contracted for enough Covid vaccines to inoculate the U.S. adult population. | Our ruling Biden said the Trump administration 'had contracted for not nearly enough vaccine to cover adults in America.' While Trump was still in office, his administration had agreements in place to buy 400 million doses of authorized vaccine, or enough to inoculate about 200 million people. That's less than the U.S. adult population. However, KHN/Politifact reviewed the Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed contracts, and found that those included enough vaccine doses that, once cleared for use by the FDA, could inoculate about 550 million people - more than double the U.S. adult population. Biden's statement contains an element of truth, but ignores facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"104526-proof-36-24908318d68b28807ce18186684bc937.jpg"
]
|
'When I came into office, the prior administration had contracted for not nearly enough vaccine to cover adults in America. | Contradiction | During a March 2 news conference on the COVID-19 pandemic, President Joe Biden claimed that former President Donald Trump's administration did not ensure there would be enough vaccines for the American public. 'When I came into office, the prior administration had contracted for not nearly enough vaccine to cover adults in America,' said Biden. 'We rectified that.' Biden then announced he was using the Defense Production Act to facilitate a partnership between two competing drug companies: Merck had agreed to help manufacture the recently authorized Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The move, he said, would accelerate the timeline for the availability of vaccines to the American public: 'We're now on track to have enough vaccine supply for every adult in America by the end of May,' he said, two months earlier than he had previously projected. It's been a common political message since the Biden administration took office that the initial vaccine rollout under Trump was 'chaotic.' PolitiFact previously rated a claim by Biden's chief of staff, Ron Klain, that the Trump administration left no vaccine plan behind as Mostly False. So, we thought it was important to check whether Biden was going too far in alleging that the Trump administration hadn't contracted for enough vaccines to cover the American public. Let's see what the contracts, which are public documents, say. The Operation Warp Speed contracts and FDA's process As part of Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration entered into contracts with multiple drugmakers. The contracts were generally signed while potential vaccines were still in clinical trials. Experts told us this was smart, because the Trump administration didn't know what vaccines from which drugmakers would work, how effective they would be or how quickly they could be produced. 'That was the whole approach of Operation Warp Speed,' said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. 'Not knowing which one would cross the finish line, the Trump administration took a portfolio approach and invested in multiple vaccines.' Here's what the Trump administration's initial contracts called for drug makers to supply to the U.S. government: Pfizer-BioNTech: 100 million doses (2 dose regimen) Moderna: 100 million doses (2 dose regimen) Johnson & Johnson: 100 million doses (1 dose regimen) AstraZeneca: 300 million doses (2 dose regimen) Novavax: 100 million doses (2 dose regimen) Sanofi-GlaxoSmithKline: 100 million doses (1 or 2 dose regimen) In total, the amounts agreed to under these contracts equal about 800 million vaccine doses, or enough for more than 400 million people. The U.S., based on U.S. Census estimates, has around 328 million people, of whom about 255 million are older than 18. (Vaccines are not yet authorized for children.) So it appears that the Trump administration's contracts with drugmakers did cover enough doses to vaccinate the entire U.S. adult population - and then some. By that measure, Biden's statement is inaccurate. An important point to remember, though, is that these contract numbers don't necessarily represent deliverable vaccines. The contracts represent early promises. There were still important hurdles that had to be cleared before these possible vaccine candidates could be a reality. Kevin Gilligan, a senior consultant with Biologics Consulting, a firm focused on pharmaceuticals, said once drugmakers develop a vaccine, they must test it through clinical trials with humans and amass enough data to show the vaccines are safe and effective and cause minimal side effects. The data is then presented to the Food and Drug Administration, which decides whether the vaccine should be authorized for emergency use. Granting an emergency use authorization means the vaccine can then be distributed to the public. Until recently, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were the only two that had reached that point, gaining authorization on Dec. 11 and 18 respectively. The Trump administration announced Dec. 23 that it would buy an additional 200 million doses in total of both companies' vaccines. The caveat worth noting: The real numbers were lower A Biden administration press official told KHN that the president was referring only to orders for the authorized vaccines. 'When the Trump Administration was in office, there were only two approved vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) and the Trump Administration had not contracted for enough of them to vaccinate all Americans. They only had 400 million doses of these authorized vaccines, which is only enough for 200 million Americans. Upon coming into office, one of our first steps was to ensure that we had enough supply secured for every American. We were prepared from Day 1.' On this point, the Biden White House is correct. The U.S. government had in place agreements to buy 400 million doses of the authorized vaccines, which were both two-dose vaccines - not enough for the entire U.S. adult population. It's also true that five days after Biden became president, he announced his administration had reached agreements with Moderna and Pfizer to buy a combined additional 200 million doses. That purchase was finalized on Feb. 11 and brought the total U.S. supply to 600 million doses of authorized vaccines, or enough to vaccinate 300 million people. In addition, on Feb. 27, Johnson & Johnson's vaccine was authorized for emergency use. Under the Operation Warp Speed contract, J&J is supposed to provide 100 million doses to the U.S. by the end of May, but the company is reportedly behind on production. The Biden administration's move to get J&J to team up with Merck to achieve its production goal will increase vaccine supply. But, is it fair for Biden to blame the Trump administration for not buying more of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines once they became authorized for emergency use? The answer to that isn't clear-cut, said the experts. 'It's not totally fair to say the prior administration didn't purchase enough, since they did move to purchase more doses after the vaccine was authorized,' said Jennifer Kates, senior vice president and director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. 'I think the question is should they have purchased it earlier?' The New York Times reported on Dec. 7 that before Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine was shown to be highly effective in clinical trials, the company had offered the U.S. government the option to buy additional doses, but the Trump administration declined. Former Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar disputed the news report, saying during a TV interview that Pfizer hadn't agreed to a production amount or delivery time for the additional vaccine, so he couldn't agree to the deal: 'I'm certainly not going to sign a deal with Pfizer giving them $10 billion to buy vaccine that they could deliver to us five, 10 years hence. That doesn't make any sense.' James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a non-governmental organization that obtained copies of COVID-19 government contracts, agreed that once it was clear the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were likely to receive FDA authorization, the Trump administration could have taken action to make competing drug companies increase their vaccine manufacturing capacity in the way Biden did with Merck and J&J. 'The U.S. could have forced technology transfer between companies, which meant they would have been assured of additional vaccine manufacturing capacity,' said Love. 'The agreements we have now about scaling manufacturing are coming pretty late actually. It takes several months to get stuff up and running.' But Gilligan noted that the Biden administration had the advantage of hindsight. 'Biden inherited the success of vaccine development done under Trump and then expanded on it,' said Gilligan. 'And the Biden administration has the benefit of looking back at what was done well and what wasn't and making the appropriate corrective changes. Hindsight is 20/20.' Overall, there are questions around whether the Trump administration could have acted more quickly to buy doses or increase vaccine manufacturing capacity. And the Biden administration has certainly taken significant measures to expand supplies. But it's stretching the truth to say the Trump administration hadn't contracted for enough Covid vaccines to inoculate the U.S. adult population. | Our ruling Biden said the Trump administration 'had contracted for not nearly enough vaccine to cover adults in America.' While Trump was still in office, his administration had agreements in place to buy 400 million doses of authorized vaccine, or enough to inoculate about 200 million people. That's less than the U.S. adult population. However, KHN/Politifact reviewed the Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed contracts, and found that those included enough vaccine doses that, once cleared for use by the FDA, could inoculate about 550 million people - more than double the U.S. adult population. Biden's statement contains an element of truth, but ignores facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"104526-proof-36-24908318d68b28807ce18186684bc937.jpg"
]
|
Says there are fewer than 2,000 confirmed COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.S. | Contradiction | A conservative group that focuses on exposing what it describes as leftist bias in the news media misled its Facebook audience by claiming that fewer than 2,000 people are currently hospitalized in the United States with COVID-19. The post is from the Media Research Center, which runs the website Newsbusters.org. The post includes an image, which starts with 'Should this induce media panic?': 'What the media aren't showing you: COVID hospitalizations have decreased dramatically since last summer,' wrote the Media Research Center, which has nearly 1.8 million Facebook followers. The chart describes laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 hospitalizations. It shows somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 hospitalizations, down from a peak of more than 6,000 hospitalizations in January. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The chart cites the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as its data source. And while the Media Research Center copied the CDC data accurately, it failed to include a very important CDC-issued disclaimer. The data in the post is drawn from just 14 states - a pool that accounts for less than 10% of the U.S. population. It includes no data from states where cases have spiked, such as Florida, Louisiana or Texas. It's a wildly low undercount. Let's look at Florida by itself. The seven-day average of new hospital admissions with confirmed COVID-19 was 1,936 for July 31 to Aug. 6 - a 29.7% increase from the previous week, according to the CDC. As of Aug. 9, 13,977 inpatient beds in Florida were in use by COVID-19 patients in 251 of Florida's hospitals - one-quarter of the inpatient beds in those hospitals, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The number of hospitalizations is a record for the pandemic, according to the Miami Herald, which relied on data the state reports to the CDC. In Texas, more than 8,100 people were hospitalized as of Aug. 4, according to the Texas Tribune, which relies on data from the Texas Department of State Health Services. More than one-third of new COVID-19 hospitalizations came from Florida and Texas, according to the White House. None of that data is accounted for in the Media Research Center chart. So what is that CDC data? According to the CDC, it represents The Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET). 'The current network covers nearly 100 counties in the 10 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) states (CA, CO, CT, GA, MD, MN, NM, NY, OR, and TN) and four additional states through the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Project (IA, MI, OH, and UT). The network represents approximately 10% of US population (~32 million people),' the CDC writes. The Emerging Infections Programs is a 'collaboration between CDC and 10 state health departments working with academic partners to conduct active population-based surveillance and special studies for several emerging infectious diseases with special emphasis on infectious diseases related to the key EIP activities.' The bottom line: It's a snapshot of some data. But it's not what the Media Research Center described. The CDC's COVID tracker says the current seven-day average of people hospitalized with COVID-19 sits at 50,502. And the CDC notes that because of reporting delays, that figure should be repeated with caution. | Our ruling A chart from the Media Research Center claims there are less than 2,000 confirmed COVID-19 hospitalizations. The group looked at a sampling of data from 14 states. But that data includes only 10% of the U.S. population and not states like Florida and Texas, where more than 20,000 people are hospitalized alone. We rate the post False. | [
"104528-proof-21-gKAaB_2iPXtIMFBlEdrYsMZSJ-BhnHASfcvpu6B771cmcq6qk0N35z5gHInjE5J-aMSGyte0BzmM7dtq.jpg"
]
|
Says there are fewer than 2,000 confirmed COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.S. | Contradiction | A conservative group that focuses on exposing what it describes as leftist bias in the news media misled its Facebook audience by claiming that fewer than 2,000 people are currently hospitalized in the United States with COVID-19. The post is from the Media Research Center, which runs the website Newsbusters.org. The post includes an image, which starts with 'Should this induce media panic?': 'What the media aren't showing you: COVID hospitalizations have decreased dramatically since last summer,' wrote the Media Research Center, which has nearly 1.8 million Facebook followers. The chart describes laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 hospitalizations. It shows somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 hospitalizations, down from a peak of more than 6,000 hospitalizations in January. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The chart cites the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as its data source. And while the Media Research Center copied the CDC data accurately, it failed to include a very important CDC-issued disclaimer. The data in the post is drawn from just 14 states - a pool that accounts for less than 10% of the U.S. population. It includes no data from states where cases have spiked, such as Florida, Louisiana or Texas. It's a wildly low undercount. Let's look at Florida by itself. The seven-day average of new hospital admissions with confirmed COVID-19 was 1,936 for July 31 to Aug. 6 - a 29.7% increase from the previous week, according to the CDC. As of Aug. 9, 13,977 inpatient beds in Florida were in use by COVID-19 patients in 251 of Florida's hospitals - one-quarter of the inpatient beds in those hospitals, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The number of hospitalizations is a record for the pandemic, according to the Miami Herald, which relied on data the state reports to the CDC. In Texas, more than 8,100 people were hospitalized as of Aug. 4, according to the Texas Tribune, which relies on data from the Texas Department of State Health Services. More than one-third of new COVID-19 hospitalizations came from Florida and Texas, according to the White House. None of that data is accounted for in the Media Research Center chart. So what is that CDC data? According to the CDC, it represents The Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET). 'The current network covers nearly 100 counties in the 10 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) states (CA, CO, CT, GA, MD, MN, NM, NY, OR, and TN) and four additional states through the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Project (IA, MI, OH, and UT). The network represents approximately 10% of US population (~32 million people),' the CDC writes. The Emerging Infections Programs is a 'collaboration between CDC and 10 state health departments working with academic partners to conduct active population-based surveillance and special studies for several emerging infectious diseases with special emphasis on infectious diseases related to the key EIP activities.' The bottom line: It's a snapshot of some data. But it's not what the Media Research Center described. The CDC's COVID tracker says the current seven-day average of people hospitalized with COVID-19 sits at 50,502. And the CDC notes that because of reporting delays, that figure should be repeated with caution. | Our ruling A chart from the Media Research Center claims there are less than 2,000 confirmed COVID-19 hospitalizations. The group looked at a sampling of data from 14 states. But that data includes only 10% of the U.S. population and not states like Florida and Texas, where more than 20,000 people are hospitalized alone. We rate the post False. | [
"104528-proof-21-gKAaB_2iPXtIMFBlEdrYsMZSJ-BhnHASfcvpu6B771cmcq6qk0N35z5gHInjE5J-aMSGyte0BzmM7dtq.jpg"
]
|
Says Oprah Winfrey was wearing an ankle monitor during her Meghan Markle interview. | Contradiction | In March 2020, after baseless allegations that Oprah Winfrey was under house arrest and wearing an ankle monitor started to spread on social media, the media powerhouse addressed the rumors on Twitter. 'Just got a phone call that my name is trending,' she wrote nearly a year ago. 'And being trolled for some awful FAKE thing. It's NOT TRUE. Haven't been raided, or arrested. Just sanitizing and self distancing with the rest of the world.' Following her interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry that aired on March 7, similar baseless allegations emerged. 'Oprah? Ankle monitor?' reads the description in one of four images on Facebook that all draw attention to Winfrey's footwear during the interview. In each photo, the left boot she was wearing is circled in red. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We watched clips of the interview and looked at still images. What some people are identifying as a hidden ankle monitor looks to us like a fold in Winfrey's leather boot. Unfounded claims that powerful figures such as politicians and celebrities have been arrested are not new and they're rooted in the QAnon conspiracy theory. There is no evidence to corroborate the claim that Winfrey was wearing an ankle monitor in the interview. We rate this post Pants on Fire. | We rate this post Pants on Fire. | []
|
'Alec Baldwin arrested for first-degree murder and possession of child pornography. | Contradiction | The district attorney in Santa Fe County, N.M., said on Oct. 26 that she wasn't ruling out criminal charges in the shooting that left Los Angeles cinematographer Halyna Hutchins dead on the set of 'Rust.' Actor Alec Baldwin was handling the gun that fired, but District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies said that her office was focused on figuring out what kind of round was in the gun and who had loaded the ammunition, the New York Times reported. 'It's probably weeks, if not months, of follow-up investigation that we're going to need to get to the point of charging,' the Times quoted her as saying. A more dramatic news headline now being shared on social media contradicts that narrative, and that's because it's not true. 'Alec Baldwin arrested for first-degree murder and possession of child pornography,' the headline says. It continues: 'The Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office has arrested Alec Baldwin and charged him with first-degree murder as well as possession of child pornography, and ordered a media blackout that has been approved by a judge. Outlets in the United States are temporarily banned from reporting on Baldwin's arrest.' Posts sharing it were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A spokesperson for the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office did not return our calls asking about the claims. But there is nothing to support these allegations, and the website that posted this story has previously posted other misinformation that we've debunked, including claims that Brian Laundrie is alive in Mexico, that former President Barack Obama was arrested for espionage, and that Pope Francis was arrested. This story about Baldwin's supposed arrest was posted on the website on Oct. 23, several days before the New York Times story reporting that prosecutors were not close to filing criminal charges. And since then, Fox News reported that Baldwin was seen picking up food in Vermont on Oct. 25. TMZ posted a photo of Baldwin there on what it said was Oct. 24. We rate claims that he was arrested Pants on Fire! | We rate claims that he was arrested Pants on Fire! | []
|
'12 white female bodies in garage freezer tagged 'Black Lives Matter. | Contradiction | The logo at the top of a website called Now 8 News looks like it could be the logo of a local television station. The slogan below it reads: 'First in news.' But the supposed news story that social media users are now sharing from the site is fake. 'Los Angeles police: 12 white female bodies in garage freezer tagged, 'Black Lives Matter,'' it says. Though the story is undated, it claimed the Los Angeles Police Department made the 'gruesome discovery today.' 'Upon arriving at the scene, police knocked on the door to be greeted by a man 'under the influence of drugs,'' the story says, italicizing that detail. 'Upon further investigation, they found 12 White Female Bodies in Garage Freezer Tagged, Black Lives Matter.' The victims were all white women in their mid-20s with blond hair, according to the story, and a suspect is identified only as 'Mathis.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The images that appear with the story - one of a Black man looking at the camera and the other showing the back of a man in a shirt that says 'coroner' - are the same images from a similar hoax we fact-checked in 2017. Only in that version of the story, a 39-year-old man in Chicago was arrested after police found '19 white female bodies in freezers with 'Black Lives Matter' carved into skin.' But we called LAPD to be sure. 'Fake news,' a spokesperson said. We rate this story Pants on Fire. | We rate this story Pants on Fire. | []
|
Video shows 'pupils in Nigeria running away from being vaccinated. | Contradiction | A years-old video that shows students in uniform dropping from a second-story and then running away from a building is again gaining traction after being shared on Facebook, but the description of the footage is inaccurate. 'Pupils in Nigeria running away from being vaccinated of covic19 vaccine,' the post says, referring to the vaccine against COVID-19. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Though this version of the video was posted back in January, and this post was being widely viewed in August, the original video has been online since before the first COVID-19 case was reported in China in December 2019. As other fact-checkers have reported, it was posted on YouTube in May of 2019, when a tear gas canister exploded at a school in Nigeria. 'The explosion caused panic,' the Guardian reported, 'prompting several students who were scared to start jumping down from the first floor of the two-storey of the secondary school.' As of mid-August, only about 700,000 people in Nigeria had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to Reuters. That's a fraction of the country's 200 million residents though it recently received a delivery of four million doses of the Moderna vaccine. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
'AARP endorsed Biden' and 'says if you are past 75 you should just die and go away. | Contradiction | AARP is an organization that lobbies on behalf of Americans who are 50 and older, so it would be surprising if, actually, they think some of their members should just die. But that's exactly what recent Facebook posts like this one claim. 'AARP endorsed Biden. Biden's virus committee doesn't think living past 75 is worth living,' it says. 'Will you renew your AARP membership since AARP says if you are past 75 you should just die and go away?' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We previously fact-checked another post that said AARP endorsed Biden - that's False. AARP is a nonpartisan organization that doesn't endorse political candidates. Jason Young, an AARP spokesperson, told us that the other allegation in this Facebook post is wrong, too. 'Since the early days of the pandemic, AARP has warned policymakers on all sides that rationing care based on age or disability is discriminatory,' Young said in an email. 'Older people are not political pawns or less worthy to receive care or a vaccine than anyone else.' Press releases and news coverage in recent months support this. A March 31 press release from AARP titled 'AARP statement against rationing in the distribution of and access to health care' quotes Nancy LeaMond, the organization's executive vice president. 'Using age or disability to categorically exclude people from accessing treatment would be discriminatory and AARP opposes it,' she said. An April 9 Wall Street Journal article about state plans to possibly ration ventilators as health care facilities were overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients reported that AARP called for federal policies to protect the elderly and other vulnerable groups from rationing. The Washington Post reported that AARP 'decried age cutoffs for ventilator access in some plans.' On April 24, AARP sent a letter to the director of the civil rights office at the Department of Health and Human Services. 'It is imperative that those entrusted with deciding who gets access to healthcare do not discriminate,' the letter said. 'Using age or disability status to categorically exclude people from accessing treatment violates existing federal law and we join you in strongly opposing such discrimination.' Biden, who was elected president at age 77, did form a coronavirus advisory board that includes Dr. Atul Gawande, a senior adviser in Health and Human Services during the Clinton administration, Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who was an adviser to the agency's secretary and Ezekiel Emanuel, an Obama administration health policy advisor who in 2014 wrote an essay about reducing medical interventions by choice in old age. But the purpose of the board is to prevent COVID-19 spread, particularly among those most at risk, including the eldery. There is no evidence it advocates the notion that life after 75 isn't worth living. | Our ruling A post on Facebook claims that 'AARP endorsed Biden' and 'says if you are past 75 you should just die and go away.' AARP didn't endorse Biden, or anyone. And the organization, which represents millions of Americans age 50 and older, has aggressively lobbied against any health care policies that would discriminate against aging populations. We rate these claims about AARP Pants on Fire! | []
|
'AARP endorsed Biden' and 'says if you are past 75 you should just die and go away. | Contradiction | AARP is an organization that lobbies on behalf of Americans who are 50 and older, so it would be surprising if, actually, they think some of their members should just die. But that's exactly what recent Facebook posts like this one claim. 'AARP endorsed Biden. Biden's virus committee doesn't think living past 75 is worth living,' it says. 'Will you renew your AARP membership since AARP says if you are past 75 you should just die and go away?' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We previously fact-checked another post that said AARP endorsed Biden - that's False. AARP is a nonpartisan organization that doesn't endorse political candidates. Jason Young, an AARP spokesperson, told us that the other allegation in this Facebook post is wrong, too. 'Since the early days of the pandemic, AARP has warned policymakers on all sides that rationing care based on age or disability is discriminatory,' Young said in an email. 'Older people are not political pawns or less worthy to receive care or a vaccine than anyone else.' Press releases and news coverage in recent months support this. A March 31 press release from AARP titled 'AARP statement against rationing in the distribution of and access to health care' quotes Nancy LeaMond, the organization's executive vice president. 'Using age or disability to categorically exclude people from accessing treatment would be discriminatory and AARP opposes it,' she said. An April 9 Wall Street Journal article about state plans to possibly ration ventilators as health care facilities were overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients reported that AARP called for federal policies to protect the elderly and other vulnerable groups from rationing. The Washington Post reported that AARP 'decried age cutoffs for ventilator access in some plans.' On April 24, AARP sent a letter to the director of the civil rights office at the Department of Health and Human Services. 'It is imperative that those entrusted with deciding who gets access to healthcare do not discriminate,' the letter said. 'Using age or disability status to categorically exclude people from accessing treatment violates existing federal law and we join you in strongly opposing such discrimination.' Biden, who was elected president at age 77, did form a coronavirus advisory board that includes Dr. Atul Gawande, a senior adviser in Health and Human Services during the Clinton administration, Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who was an adviser to the agency's secretary and Ezekiel Emanuel, an Obama administration health policy advisor who in 2014 wrote an essay about reducing medical interventions by choice in old age. But the purpose of the board is to prevent COVID-19 spread, particularly among those most at risk, including the eldery. There is no evidence it advocates the notion that life after 75 isn't worth living. | Our ruling A post on Facebook claims that 'AARP endorsed Biden' and 'says if you are past 75 you should just die and go away.' AARP didn't endorse Biden, or anyone. And the organization, which represents millions of Americans age 50 and older, has aggressively lobbied against any health care policies that would discriminate against aging populations. We rate these claims about AARP Pants on Fire! | []
|
Photo shows an electric car charging station that uses '12 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, and it takes three hours to fully charge a car to get 200 miles. That's 36 gallons for 200 miles. 5.6 mpg. | Contradiction | A widely circulating Facebook post points to public charging stations as a glaring example of why electric cars are not as environmentally friendly as advertised. The July 11 post includes a picture it identifies as an electric car charging station in Round Rock, Texas. The accompanying text claims electric cars are more inefficient because charging stations use diesel fuel generators to produce electricity. 'That 350kWh generator uses 12 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, and it takes three hours to fully charge a car to get 200 miles,' the text reads. 'That's 36 gallons for 200 Miles! 5.6 mpg.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. Instagram is owned by Facebook. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The charging station shown in the post is located at an outlet mall in Round Rock, an Austin suburb. However, the description of how it operates is wrong. Electrify America, which operates the charging station, called the claim that it uses electricity derived from a diesel generator 'absolutely false.' 'Our direct-current fast electric-vehicle charging station in Round Rock, Texas, is powered by Oncor Electric Delivery Company, one of the largest utility companies in the U.S.,' Mike Moran, a spokesperson for the company, said in an email. Oncor distributes electricity across the Texas electric grid but doesn't generate its own power. An Oncor spokesperson said it's hard to pinpoint exactly what kind of energy is used to power the Round Rock station - whether it's derived from coal, nuclear, wind or solar energy. Similar claims linking electric vehicles to diesel generators have circulated before. A July 1 post used much of the same text, but with a different image and without any mention of Texas. It claimed diesel charging stations are 'popping up everywhere.' The picture used in that post is actually of a diesel-powered charging station, but not anything like the public ones that are being installed around the country. This one was created as an experiment in 2018 in Australia to test the viability of using a diesel generator to charge a car in the desert. Jon Edwards, the man who thought of the experiment, told The Driven he wanted to see whether charging with a diesel generator was viable, and how the fuel consumption for the generator compared with driving a similar-size diesel-powered car. The experiment involved using the charger to charge 10 electric cars - most of them Teslas - for one hour each, and measuring how much energy was added to the battery during charging. Edwards used the lifetime averages for each car to convert that energy figure to an estimate of the added distance the car could travel after charging. The experiment found that when charged this way, a BMW i3 was the most fuel-efficient of the electric cars, consuming 4.39 liters of fuel for every 100 kilometers of range added, equivalent to about 54 mpg. One Tesla model consumed around 7 liters of diesel fuel per 100 km of range, equivalent to about 34 mpg. Edwards' experiment found that, in most instances, using the generator to charge a car consumed less fuel than a similarly sized diesel car would to travel the same distance. A diesel-fueled VW Touareg SUV, for example, used 7.2 liters of fuel per 100 km. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims an electric car charging station in Texas runs on a diesel generator and that a car has to charge for three hours and use 12 gallons of diesel fuel to travel 200 miles. The company that owns the charging station pictured in the post says the station is connected to an electrical grid and does not use diesel fuel. Public chargers are generally connected to the local power supply and do not use diesel generators. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.